First 2016 GOP Presidential Debate: My Ranking of the Performances

Continuing my tradition of reviewing the Republican Presidential Debates (and Democratic Debates), which goes back to 2007,  here's my take on what happened on Fox News in Cleveland tonight.

First, as a preamble, I thought the 5pm appetizer debate, consisting of the seven contenders whose polling numbers didn't qualify them (by Fox's standards) for the main event, was one of the most boring political debates I've ever seen.   Sad to say, that debate made pretty clear why those seven candidates polled so poorly.

But on to the debate of 10, which took place from 9 to 11 tonight, I'll appraise this by ranking the performances from worst to best, on all the issues:

10. Ben Carson, neurosurgeon was amiable enough, but clearly out of his depth.  I'll be amazed if his polling numbers don't dip below one percent in the weeks ahead.

9.  Gov. Scott Walker, who was seen in reaction shots agreeing enthusiastically with whatever Carson was saying, didn't do very well himself.   I can't think if a single surprising or memorable point he made.

8. Sen.  Rand Paul came on strong with an attack on Trump at the beginning, and had a few good moments, but let Gov. Christie get the better of him in an exchange about hugs - Paul slammed Christie for hugging Obama, Christie responded that the hugs he most remembered were those of 9/11 victims.  This reprised, in effect, the exchange about national security between Ron Paul (Rand's father) and Giuliani in 2007, except tonight Christie did much better than Giuliani.

7. Gov. Huckabee had some strong moments - his best his joke at the end, in which he talked scathingly about someone leading in the polls with no valid ideas, whom we expected to be Trump, but turned out to be Hillary - but for the most part Huckabee looked and sounded tired.

6. Sen. Ted Cruz was clear and dynamic, but I can't think of an original or commanding idea expressed by him.

5. Christie had a surprisingly good debate, getting the best of Paul, as I said above, but also making powerful points about his success as Governor of New Jersey (and, fortunately for him, no one brought up Bridgegate).

4. Gov. Jeb Bush, as second in the polls after Trump, had more than anyone other than Trump to lose. He accounted well for himself  - spoke well, and came across as the compassionate conservative, especially on immigration, which is where he wants to be.

3. Sen. Marco Rubio came across as the man of the future - showing an understanding of the digital age - as well as compassionate and savvy on a variety of issues.   He was well-spoken, genial, and incisive.

2, Donald Trump held his own, including even in his answer to Megyn Kelly's question about the vicious and demeaning things he's said about women, and later defending his declared bankruptcies in response to a question from Chris Wallace.   For someone with zero experience debating and running in elections, Trump, whatever you may think of his views, stood strong up on that stage.

1. Gov. Kasich was the biggest surprise of the night.  He was powerful without being belligerent, and like Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio displayed what seemed like a real compassion for humanity.

So there you have it - an honest appraisal, without reference to my own political views, which are mostly in disagreement with everyone on the stage (I voted twice for Obama).

Obama Sweeps Three Primaries, Gives Magnificent Speech at Jefferson-Jackson Dinner

Barack Obama may be the best orator of our age - I certainly can't think of anyone better, or even close. His speech tonight at the Jefferson-Jackson Democratic dinner in Virginia was a pleasure to behold and hear on television. The best part was Obama's confrontation of the charge that he's an idealist, with pie-in-the-sky hopes. His answers swept through the best of American history - freeing the slaves, giving women the right to vote, beating fascism in World War II, sacrificing lives for civil rights in the 1960s - and was another masterpiece of inspiration. It's hard to imagine anyone with any sensitivity not being moved.

Hillary Clinton gave an excellent speech, too, making it more clear than she usually does how her election as President would be revolutionary, too, by putting a woman in the White House. This is something she'll need to do more of, if she stands any chance of getting the nomination.

Clinton's speech was, indeed, less political than Obama's - but political is just what Obama needs to do now. He has to convince as many Democrats as possible that he can beat the 19th-century Republicans who are running for the highest office.

Obama certainly won by overwhelming margins tonight in Louisiana, Nebraska, and Washington State (and, just for good measure, in the Virgin Islands, too). The delegate count is still close, and there are some crucially important primaries ahead, but Obama is gaining an edge.

Meanwhile, Huckabee beat McCain in Kansas, is leading handily in Louisiana, and is even a little ahead in Washington State at this moment. The Republican contest may be not be as settled as was thought just a few days ago, and this is good news, too.


15-minute podcast of this commentary

subscribe to this podcast on your cell phone: 415-223-4122

Obama and Clinton in Precedent Setting Split of Super Tuesday Vote//How About Debate with Dems and Repubs at Same Table?

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton pretty evenly split the SuperTuesday primary vote tonight. Obama won more states. Clinton won more of the bigger states. Obama won the South and Midwest. Clinton won most of the Northeast (with the exception of Connecticut) and California. The all-important delegate count looks to be evenly split.

Hillary Clinton gave a fine and inspiring speech. I found Barack Obama's speech even more inspiring, but that's ok, and takes little away from Hillary.

I voted for Obama in New York today, and would vote for him again. He has the better capacity to generate and lead a new kind of politics in America. But Hillary has something special and important, as well. I hope I have the chance to vote for Obama in the general election, and will do all I can to make that happen, but I would gladly vote for Hillary over the any of the Republicans, and would work hard to elect her President, if it comes to that.

When I cast my vote today, I realized that I had never felt happier, better, voting in a national election. I was too young to vote for JFK. In 1968, I held my nose and voted for Humphrey. It has sometimes been somewhat better since then, but nothing as good as today.

I had a choice between two extraordinary people. The first African-American and the first woman with a real chance to be our next President. It was an extraordinary feeling. My wife, who also admires both candidates, said it felt to her as if the 21st century had truly begun in politics this year - or last year and this year - and she's right.

I hate to even mention the Republican candidates, because they are not of the 21st century. One of them - Huckabee - doesn't believe in evolution. That's not even 20th century. Another - the current frontrunner, John McCain - lashed out at one of his rivals today, Mitt Romney, because Romney dared to criticize Bob Dole, who had endorsed McCain. In McCain's world, Bob Dole is beyond political criticism because he is a war hero. Is that the kind of reasoning we want in a war hero who is now running for President?

So the race is on. Two candidates, indisputably of the 21st century, indisputably of hope and a new kind of America, versus three (or two, depending upon what Mitt Romney does) who worship the old false idols and way of doing things.

Hillary Clinton has called for four debates with Obama in the next month.

I have a suggestion for at least one night of another kind of debate: how about the Democratic and Republican contenders sit down together at one table? All five or four of them.

That would be a debate that would really show America the choices we have in this election.

Republicans Debate on MSNBC in Florida: Romney Unveils New Cylon Expression

A lumpy, uneven Republican debate on MSNBC in Florida tonight - with some really boring stretches on the economy, but each of the candidates having some good moments.

First, our Cylon watch - otherwise known as, Is Mitt Romney A Cylon? - a question first introduced here on Infinite Regress back in June. The Cylons, of course, are cyborgs from Battlestar Galactica who look just like humans, and, with The Sarah Connor Chronicles now on television, we might just as easily ask Is Mitt Romney a Terminator? - or, more precisely, one of the more recent, post-Arnold models.

The most Cylon-like behavior in Romney tonight was his new, non-smiling expression. Take a look at clips from the debate when you have a chance. See what I mean? Since the last debate, someone programmed in a new, serious, concerned expression on Romney's face - probably found in some poll to be more effective than his more typical smile.

As to the words tonight -

Romney was clear in his economics, and got in a fine Republican line about Bill Clinton (possibly taken from Obama).

McCain seemed Presidential, especially when he came to Giuliani's defense about The New York Times' endorsement of McCain and its attack on Giuliani. (The New York Times also endorsed Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. It's not clear to me who, other than The New York Times, cares about its endorsements any more.)

Giuliani gave a principled answer about his support of the war not being based on polls (though I disagree with that support).

Huckabee was more humorous than usual tonight - explaining that he didn't disagree with Chuck Norris' attack on McCain, because Norris was standing right next to Huckabee when he made the attack, and Huckabee didn't dare disagree...

And Ron Paul, as always, made the most sensible points - explaining yet again why we should not get involved in unconstitutional wars.

I'm beginning to think that we've gotten about as much as we can expect out of these Republican debates. The Democrats, having winnowed the field, certainly put on a far more spirited debate in South Carolina a few nights ago. There will certainly be fewer Republican contenders after February 5, and possibly even after Florida next week.

Saturday Night at the Polls: Dems and Repubs in Nevada, Repubs in South Carolina

Some short takes on the results of today's three caucuses/primaries:

1. I'm less interested in Romney winning the Republican caucus in Nevada than I am in Ron Paul coming in second. Support him or not, that's a powerful, additional rebuke to Fox News, ABC News, and all other mass media that have derided and belittled the support for his candidacy. Still waiting on Fox News and ABC News, in particular, to apologize to the American people. (Fox News: you excluded Ron Paul from the debate in New Hampshire. He came in second in Nevada today. You still have nothing to say?)

2. Hillary won in Nevada, but she and Obama are still just about the same in delegates. One candidate who is not the same is John Edwards - coming in with 4 percent of the vote in Nevada. That's a remarkable drop for someone who came in second in Iowa. Although there is a lot that I like about John Edwards' candidacy, I think America would accomplish something truly revolutionary with either a woman or an African-American in the White House that we would not with John Edwards.

3. I'm glad McCain won in South Carolina, if only because his win was just desert for the disgraceful political campaign Bush's people ran against McCain in 2000. But there's more than that. I'm glad Huckabee lost. Sorry, he's very likable - but he doesn't believe in evolution. (Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution, either, but that doesn't let the arrogant media off the hook.)

Spirited Republican Debate on Fox in South Carolina Tonight: Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul Come Out Best

A crisp, spirited Republican debate in South Carolina earlier tonight - one of the best so far, as good the Republican debate on ABC on Saturday - and Fox included Ron Paul, which it didn't do on Sunday.

Fred Thompson was the best he's been so far, responding with a sharp mix of passion, clarity, and humor. He took Mike Huckabee to task for being a Democrat in Republican clothing. Even though I agree with Huckabee's "Democratic" positions about education, etc., I had to admire Thompson's performance.

Huckabee, for his part, however, was also excellent. He came through again as likable and sincere, as well as vivid and saber-rattling in his response to the Iranian gunboat incident - warning Iranians and anyone that if they attack American boats, the next thing they'll be seeing are the gates of hell. (Thompson got in a good line about the Iranians being close to seeing the virgins they think await their heroes in the afterlife.) Again, I don't agree at all with this jingoism, but it was good Republican television.

As for what I do agree with, Ron Paul was incisive and right on target in his comparison of the Iranian gunboat incident with the Gulf on Tonkin incident off the coast of North Vietnam in the 1960s. Lyndon Johnson used it to push the US into an escalated (undeclared) war in Vietnam. But, as Ron Paul correctly alluded to, it turned out later that this incident had been set up and provoked by Johnson precisely for the purpose of increasing US military action in Vietnam - or, starting up a full-fledged (undeclared) war.

Ron Paul was also clear in disassociating himself and his candidacy from the 9/11 "truthers" - those who think that the U.S. brought down the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001.

Likely Ron Paul was so effective tonight because he was finally given some time to speak and make his points.

But the Southern weather agreed with all of the candidates. Guiliani was forceful in his defense of his immigration policy in NYC - how can you question the immigration status, he asked, of someone who is giving the police information a rape or a murder? You don't need a green card to commit those crimes, he added.

Romney sparred well, but once again came up with a science fictional, computational metaphor - making some point about three-dimensional chess (the first I ever saw of three-dimensional chess was when Spock was playing it on Star Trek). I don't know, it's a different series, but I'm still thinking Cylon...

And McCain was pretty good, too - though, in general, he seemed to assume the position as the most tired candidate, held until tonight by Fred Thompson.

***
After the debate: Ron Paul won the telephone poll, and of course Hannity didn't believe it. At least, this time, he knew better than to come up some story about Ron Paul's supporters voting multiple times.

A lot more debates in both parties coming up this month. It's good to see that they're getting sharper and more focused as the campaigns progress.

High Point of Fox Republican Debate Without Ron Paul: Ron Paul Supporters Carrying Signs Outside the Window

Well, I broke down and took a look at the Fox Rump Republican Presidential debate tonight - without Ron Paul, who got 10% of the Iowa vote - and I thought by far the most significant moment came when Ron Paul supporters walked by with nice big signs of protest outside the window, and Brit Hume and company analyzed what had happened during the 90-minute debate in New Hampshire.

I also kept an eye on the CNN replay of the excellent ABC debate from last night, so first a little comparison of the Republicans on the two nights:

1. The ABC (on CNN tonight) debate was obviously more fair and representative, since it included Ron Paul.

2. It was also far livelier, and therefore better in giving the American people a good idea of what the candidates think.

3. It also just looked better - the lightning, the seating, the general kinaesthetics of yesterday's debate was easier, more enjoyable and instructive, to look at.

As was the case last night, I thought Romney did the best in the Republican debate tonight. He was the most informative and on-point.

One interlude between Thompson and Huckabee struck me as worthy of a little attention. Thompson jumped on Huckabee for Huckabee's statement last week that Musharrif should not "continue" martial law. Huckabee has been attacked for this statement as showing ignorance that martial law had already been lifted in Pakistan.
Well, although it's true that "reinstated" might have been a better word than "continued," it's also the case that reinstatement is really a form of continuation, so Huckabee's statement is not as ignorant as Thompson and Huckabee's critics like to pretend.

***
Back to the replaying of yesterday's ABC debate on CNN tonight. I again want to congratulate ABC for that great moment in which candidates from both parties met on stage, and CNN for the daring move of rebroadcasting this debate.

Many commentators have pointed out that Obama may not have been feisty last night, but he was Presidential. Seeing some of Obama's responses again - such as his joke about watching the Redskins game along with the Republican debate - I would have to agree....

I predict that history will continue to be made on Tuesday in New Hampshire, with Obama amassing an even more impressive victory than in Iowa.

---

The Plot to Save Socrates

"challenging fun" - Entertainment Weekly

"a Da Vinci-esque thriller" - New York Daily News

"Sierra Waters is sexy as hell" - curled up with a good book

more about The Plot to Save Socrates...





Read the first chapter of The Plot to Save Socrates .... FREE!

Fox News and ABC News: Missing the Lesson of Mike Huckabee

I'm looking forward to the round of Presidential debates this weekend, but still can't get over the gall - and slap in the face of the American people - of ABC and Fox News not including some of the lower-tier candidates.

In ABC's case, the most egregious dis-invitation comes to Dennis Kucinich, who will not partake in Saturday's debate. For Fox, it's been accorded to Ron Paul, who is barred from the Sunday debate.

The situations are different. Kucinich is doing much worse in the polls, national and locally, than Ron Paul - who got 10% in the Iowa Republican caucus. But both candidates offer points of view - the most outspoken against the war, to cite one example - that Americans deserve to hear, and these media have no right to exclude from the debates.

Are the memories of these media giants so foggy, or are they so unable or unwilling to learn from recent history, that they forgot that Mike Huckabee, winner of the Iowa Republican caucus, was not much ahead of Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich in the national polls a few months ago?

The lame explanation usually given for excluding candidates is time - not enough of it to accommodate all of the candidates. To which my wife just said, as we were talking about this issue, why not just add another hour or whatever is needed to give all candidates a chance to talk.

It's worth it, isn't it?

After all, it's only our democracy at stake...

The Iowa Speeches

I thought I would briefly assess the five speeches given tonight by the major contenders in the Democratic and Republican debates.

In order that the speeches were given:

Romney: workmanlike, professional, gracious concession speech

Edwards: not especially gracious (he didn't congratulation Obama), impassioned

Clinton: comprehensive, gracious, dignified

Huckabee: relaxed, homespun, plainspoken and effective

Obama: passionate, inspiring, powerful

So, I thought all the speeches were good. But Edwards was a little disappointing in his failure to acknowledge Obama, and Obama's was the most inspiring - at least, to me.

Obama's speech beautifully captured what was most important about this evening: that American has moved on to a new plane, with a different approach to the challenges that face us. It almost doesn't matter what the specifics of this approach may be. At this point in the campaign, the conveyance of the feeling that change can happen is more important than the specifics. As Marshall McLuhan put it years ago, the medium is the message. And this, indeed, may be what separates Obama from Edwards, and from Clinton, too, and give Obama the nomination.

The same is true for Huckabee versus all of the Republicans other than Ron Paul. Huckabee sounds different. He seems more a person of the people than Romney or McCain.

The primaries are just beginning. Most of the possibilities prior to tonight are still in play. But the speeches we heard tonight give a good inkling as to where we may well be heading.

And the Pre-Primary Presidential Debates Ends With ... Almost a Snore, But a Great Line from Obama

The Republicans put on their last debate before the January 3, 2008 Iowa Caucuses yesterday - in Iowa - and the Democrats followed suit today.

I had trouble keeping my eyes open for the Republican debate, which is saying a lot, since the debate was on in the afternoon, I don't usually take siestas, and I had gotten a good night's sleep the night before.

But I can't think of anything new I heard from any of the candidates, except maybe Alan Keyes, who is an elegant speaker but somewhat out of his league (if not his mind). Huckabee seemed less exuberant than usual, Guiliani seemed tired, and I still can't help thinking that Mitt Romney may be a Cylon, quietly prepped in some Battlestar Galactica back room. I thought at the beginning of this crucially important election process that Ron Paul and his respect for the Constitution made him far and away the best Republican candidate, and the only one I could ever vote for, and I feel absolutely the same right now.

Meanwhile, I like just about all of the Democrats, more or less, in contrast to the Republicans. But none of the Democrats lit any new fires today. Actually, I thought Biden and Dodd were better than usual, and I would not be at all unhappy if either got the nomination, which seems highly unlikely at this point.

It's pretty much between Obama and Hillary - with Edwards still a possibility - and I'd say the best exchange in either debate came when Obama was asked why, if he's such a future-focused contender, does he have several (Bill) Clinton administration appointees as advisers in the Obama campaign.

Before Obama could answer- Hillary quipped, I wanna hear that...

And Obama shot back- I'm looking forward to you advising me, as well...

That struck me as something JFK might have said - which in my book is a good thing, indeed...

And so the sun sets of this first chapter of the run for the White House, 2008 ...

I'm looking forward to what Iowa Caucuses tell us on January 3.

See also Something New: How About We Look for the Best Candidates in =Both= Parties?

ABC News Good to the Last Drop in its Dissing of Ron Paul

Several people emailed me about this - but Jason Gordon was the first, early yesterday, and he gets the credit. (Two other early correspondents were Matt Caverhill, and Lee on MySpace.) The world at large - all of you, via your Internet connections - are the eyes and ears and witnesses of the mass media doing right and wrong. Our democracy depends upon you.

This is not the worst thing that ABC has done to Ron Paul, his supporters, and thereby our democratic process - no closing down online boards in the middle of discussions, no leaving Ron Paul out of post-debate analyses, as ABC did earlier this year - but it's bad enough to warrant taking permanent note.

As Matt Simon writes about in detail in the Huffington Post, ABC shunted John Stossel's interview with Ron Paul, intended for television broadcast, to its Internet site.

Now, there's nothing wrong with the Internet, and ABC is of course entitled to decide where and how to publish its interviews ... but, who is ABC kidding here? Clearly someone decided to deprive the American people of the maximum exposure that broadcast as well as Internet posting would have given this interview.

What could have driven ABC to do this? Clearly, John Stossel is a major, well-respected broadcast journalist, and Ron Paul is certainly a candidate who has raised millions of real American dollars.

Perhaps Ron Paul's low standing in the general polls was the reason. But surely ABC is aware that Mike Huckabee, once not that much higher in the polls than Ron Paul, is now in first place in the Iowa and South Carolina polls. Is ABC so sure that can't happen again? Do we want the American Broadcast Company making such kinds of decisions for the American people?

This part of our election process is soon coming to end. Beginning with the Iowa caucus in January, America will be moving from candidates debating to candidates being voted up or down.

When the history of this 2007-2008 election process is written, ABC will have a special place of dishonor. I will certainly include a section on its misreporting and anti-democratic behavior in the next book I'll be writing - entitled New, New Media.

One can only hope that ABC will improve as we move into the next phase of this process. But I'm not holding my breath that ABC will be standing up for democracy any time soon.

Dems Debate on New Fangled National Public Radio

I'm listening to the Democratic Presidential contenders debate on National Public Radio right now, and I gotta say that, although there is nothing new being offered in the positions, there is something refreshing and civilized in hearing a debate via this new-fangled radio.

Well ... radio is of course older than television, but prior to the outset of televised debates with Kennedy-Nixon in 1960, there were but three primary debates on radio, Stevenson-Kefauver in 1956, Stassen-Dewey in 1948, and a radio broadcast of Democratic and Republican hopefuls answering two questions each at a League of Women Voters Convention. FDR, a master of radio with his fireside chats, ignored Wilkie's challenge to radio debate in 1940. (See CNN's Presidential Debates in the Broadcast Era before 1960.)

The Kennedy-Nixon debates were broadcast on both television and radio. Those who saw the saw debates on TV thought JFK won; those who heard the debates on radio though Nixon was the victor. Many more people saw the debates on television, Kennedy won by a narrow margin, and television assumed the role as the preeminent political broadcast medium. (See my book, The Soft Edge: A Natural History and Future of the Information Revolution, for more on the turning-point significance of that 1960 debate.)

But radio still has its charms and value. I've been able to listen to this debate, without missing a word, while working on the computer, and grabbing a bite to eat - it's liberating not being glued to the screen. My wife just got home - she was listening to the debate in the car (hey, we're not only a tv-watching but a political family). Radio, like all acoustic media, is much amenable than visual media to multi-tasking.

The pace also feels more contemplative and leisurely - at this point, a little over an hour into the debate, only one of three main topics has been addressed - Iran. Next up will be other foreign policy. I of course already knew the positions of all the contenders prior to the debate, but it seemed to be me that points of view came through a little more clearly on radio than television.

I just heard that the Republicans were invited to do a radio debate ... but somehow couldn't work out the logistics. Late on YouTube, opting out of radio - there apparently is not an abundance of media savvy in most of the Republican campaigns. (I do know this for a fact - but I bet that Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul would have been happy to do a radio debate.)

Back to the debate. I'll be sipping a nice cup of tea...

Republican YouTube/CNN Debate in Florida

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.

Bob Dylan and Ron Paul

I was watching Martin Scorsese's 2005 No Direction Home last night - the story of Bob Dylan's complex rise through the folk, anti-war, and rock eras. My favorite scene in this extraordinary chronicle is Dylan and Joan Baez singing Dylan's "With God On Our Side" at the 1963 Newport Folk Festival. The words and emotion of that anti-war song ring as true today, unhappily, as in 1963. They're not being sung, but they're being said, by Ron Paul and his supporters.

"God On Our Side" - how countries going to war always claim or think God is on their side - is probably the best anti-war song ever written. Dylan also wrote "Masters of War," a close second. And I put Phil Ochs' "I Ain't A Marchin' Anymore" and Edwin Starr's "War" (written by Norman Whitfield and Barrett Strong) up there, too.

But what made the Newport Folk Festival scene so powerful was not just the song but the Dylan and Baez performance, two thin wisps with wonderful voices, and the way the crowd responded. This was July, 1963. JFK was still alive, and our undeclared in war in southeast Asia still low profile. But Dylan's song brought the crowd just a little into a terrible future...

We're still in that future of illegal wars right now. Critics of these wars are not on stage at Newport anymore. They're communicating on YouTube and the Internet. They're Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel.

What was the exchange last week between Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul, if not a short debate between someone (Huckabee) who believes that America has God on its side, and someone (Ron Paul) who sees the danger and hypocrisy in that...

After the Newport Folk Festival, in December 1963, Dylan received an award from the Emergency Civil Liberties Committee, celebrating the Bill of Rights. That strikes a chord in 2007, too. Which candidate speaks most often about the Bill of Rights? Ron Paul, and, actually, he is often the only candidate for President speaking about the First Amendment.

The second part of Scorsese's movie shows the torrent of criticism Dylan ran into when he began writing and singing different kinds of songs, with electric back-up. I always loved Dylan's electric as much as his folk phase. But there's a lesson here for the current campaign as well: people need to get beyond supporting the expected candidates, or doing what is politically expected of them. They need to support candidates who truly feel right to them - who are saying and doing the right things - regardless of preconceptions.

It's been a long time since 1963. It's long since due that we heed Dylan's message, and break free of the double-talking political past.

Hannity & Colmes Denigrate Ron Paul's First Place in FOX News Post-Debate Poll

So now Fox News' - via Hannity and Colmes - joins ABC News in denigrating the results of its own post-debate polls. As of about 30 minutes ago, Ron Paul was in first place with 33% percent of respondents who said he won tonight's Republican Presidential debate in New Hampshire, broadcast on Fox News, with Rudy Giuliani in second place with 16% (in the final results, Mike Huckabee moved into second place, with 18% of respondents who said he won).

Commented Hannity and Colmes on Ron Paul's victory in the Fox News poll: Ron Paul supporters were busy dialing in multiple times.

Interestingly, Ron Paul's exchange with Mike Hucbabee was the most replayed segment of the debate, was indeed its high point. Ron Paul went after Huckabee's - and all the other Republicans' - position that everyone should get behind the US war effort in Iraq. We have no valid business being there, Ron Paul emphasized, fighting in a war that was started on the basis on false information, and in defiance of our Constitution.

How is it that Hannity and Colmes, who agree on so little else, can be so quick to discount the possibility that maybe Ron Paul's first-place showing is an expression of how tired Americans are of this wrong war? And trot out the tired "multiple" dialing herring, with no cited evidence whatsoever?

The answer, I think, is that whatever Hannity and Colmes' differences of opinion, that are representatives of the same arrogant, old-line media thinking that afflicts ABC News. Hannity and Colmes owe America an apology.

Just this afternoon, I distributed my syllabus to my Intro to Communication and Media Studies class at Fordham University. September 28 will be the day I'll deliver my special lecture on the mainstream media's misreporting of Ron Paul.

Republicans Now Thumb Noses at YouTube as Well as Evolution

What do you expect? Remember that three of the Republican Presidential candidates - Brownback, Huckabee, and Tancredo - don't even believe in evolution. You expect them to understand the advantages of YouTube?

The Washington Post reported yesterday that only John McCain and Ron Paul have committed to the September YouTube/CNN debates. Ron Paul makes sense. As I've said many times, he is far and away the best of the Republican candidates. He is a rarity in both parties, because of his devotion to the U.S. Constitution. This makes him unaccepting of the FCC and Congress's attempts to trample the First Amendment, and to going to war without the required declaration.

Ron Paul's supporters have also shown considerable Internet savvy - and I expect we'll be seeing even more in the months ahead.

I'm glad John McCain sees the value of the YouTube debates. It's easy to be cynical, and say McCain is so desperate that he'll try anything, but he still deserves credit for recognizing this step forward in democracy.

As for the rest, and in particular the other front runners, Giuliani and Romney? Giuliani is said to be leaning against participating, and Romney (who is acting more than ever like a Cylon) offered this gem of wit, according to the Washington Post: "I think the presidency ought to be held at a higher level than having to answer questions from a snowman." (This presumably was a reference to the global warming question asked in the Democratic YouTube/CNN debate).

If these Republicans fail to come around to the YouTube debate, if they thumb their noses at all the questions YouTube will no doubt get for them, they will only be greasing their downhill skids.

I predict that most if not all of the recalcitrants will come around on this. Democracy is moving forward this summer. It will be a very interesting August for the Republicans.

See also - July 26, 2007 article in the Houston Chronicle - "Debate Praised as Fresh and Original", in which I and other media commentators rave about the success of this first YouTube debate...

First YouTube/CNN Presidential Debate

Is Mitt Romney A Cylon?

Three Republican Candidates Deny Evolution

How About We Look for the Best Candidates in Both Parties? (discovering Ron Paul) ...

Are Brownback, Huckabee, and Tancredo Cylons?

Well, my Mitt Romney Cylon posts seems to have gotten some good reception, so I'm encouraged to continue this line of important analysis...

Let's look, in this post, at Senator Brownback, Governor Huckabee, and Representative Tancredo - all three are running for the Republican Presidential nomination.

Why would think these three might be Cylons?

All three raised their hand in the First Republican Debate, on MSNBC last month, to signify they did not believe in evolution...

Uh oh...

1. Cylons of course were created - they did not evolve - so, of course, a Cylon would not believe in evolution.

2. Cylons have a fanatical, messianic belief in a monotheistic deity.

3. A typical Cylon ploy is to try to become President of a human society (again, consider Baltar - though he may not really be Cylon).

Huckabee tried to explain, in the third debate, why he raised his hand in the first. He said the question was really about belief in God. He said he would be tolerant of people who believed that "primates" were our ancestors. But this misses the point: one can believe in a monotheistic, omniscient, omnipresent Deity, and still accept the science of evolution. All one needs to do is believe the Deity created the world or universe to evolve along Darwinian lines ... no contradiction, no need to say you don't believe in evolution...

But Cylons tend to think in either/or categories...

I'll keep you posted on other Cylonic insights I might have, relevant to our Presidential election...

Further reading...

Three Republican Presidential Candidates Who Deny Evolution

Is Mitt Romney A Cylon?

Going to the Candidates' Debates...

That line of course comes from Simon & Garfunkel's "Mrs. Robinson," but from now on, it will also apply to Infinite Regress, where I'll be reviewing each and every Presidential debate on television...

Hey, it's television...

Later tonight, I'll be back with my review of the Third Republican Presidential debate on CNN. But now, here are my takes on the debates so far, from my postings on another one of blogs...

Second Democratic Debate (CNN): Edwards' Leap Forward - June 3, 2007

John Edwards was the clear winner in tonight's Democratic Presidential debate, with Barack Obama doing well, too.

Hillary Clinton commanded the last debate, establishing her creds on the issues and her Presidential style. She's was fine tonight, but gave us nothing in addition to her strong opening performance.

In contrast, Edwards was weak in the first debate. Tonight, he challenged both Clinton and Obama on not their vote against the recent war funding bill, which both voted against, but on their failure to lead a charge against it. It was a powerful, appealing moment for Edwards. At very least, it saved his campaign, and may have even propelled him into second place and ultimately better.

Obama was also not that vibrant in the first debate, and also much stronger tonight. But because he was neither as weak as Edwards in the opener, nor as dynamic as Edwards tonight, Obama had a good but not a great night. Still, he did what he needed to do - at very least stay in the top 3.

As for the rest, Gravel continued to provide comic relief - not because of what he said (which I mostly agree with) but because of his delivery - replete with unexpected volume modulations. Biden was not as funny as the first time, but still pretty strong, and I'm thinking he'll be a tough guy to beat for the VP nomination, if he wants it.

CNN's moderation - mainly from Wolf Blitzer - was ok.

But, like the other debates so far - still the lame show-of-hands gambit.

One of Obama's finest moments was when said to Hillary that he didn't like raising his hand. He's right. Candidates have mouths, with which they can speak and explain.

Let's save the hands for emphasis.


================================================

Second Republican Debate (Fox): Ron Paul v. Rudy Giuliani - May 15, 2007

You could have slept through the first 60 minutes of the 90-minute GOP Presidential debate in South Carolina tonight, broadcast on Fox, and not missed much - with the exception of Representative Ron Paul, who spoke cogently as always on the need for declarations of war - on the need for us to follow our own Constitution. For when we don't, as Ron Paul correctly pointed out, we get involved in wars with no clear conclusion.

And then the debate took an unexpected turn.

Ron Paul, again discussing the need for adhering to our own Constitution, added a point which is really separate from the Constitutional issue. It is true that our Founding Fathers urged a non-interventionist policy, but that was a general attitude, not by any means an explicit part of the Constitution. Dr. Paul subscribes to that policy, and said so. And he then offered the view that we were attacked on September 11 because we did not follow that policy - in particular, because we had been bombing Iraq.

Rudy Giuliani broke in and vigorously objected that this was not the reason we were attacked - we were attacked because Islamic extremists hate our way of life. Giuliani called upon Paul to retract his statement. Paul stood his ground.

Giuliani asked for more time to respond to Paul on this point. Wendell Goler - who was asking the questions at this point - refused, and went on instead to ask John McCain about the Confederate flag flying in South Carolina....

And so ended what was easily the most significant few minutes in this debate, and in fact of both Republican debates thus far.

Where do the Republicans stand now?

1. I think Ron Paul hurt his cause. The error of our involvement in Iraq need not be pinned to a general non-interventionist policy. It is enough to say the American people were misled about WMD, and we went to war illegally, without the required Declaration of War. Saying that the attacks on New York and Washington, and what happened in Pennsylvania, were all provoked by our policy is wrong, and offensive. (It's ok to be offensive, it's even admirable, if what you are saying is true. Wrong and offensive is not a place you want to be.)

2. Rudy Giuliani was able to come out swinging on this point. He doesn't own 911 as a campaign issue, but he certainly is associated with New York City and its response. He couldn't have asked for a better opportunity, and made the most of it. He cut a far clearer image than he did last week.

3. And as for the rest of the Republicans ... no surprises, no great moments, no gaffes, no raising of hands about not believing in evolution....

And one last point, about how Fox moderated this debate: There were other candidates on the stage who wanted to say something about the Giuliani-Paul exchange. Next time, don't be so rigid and wedded to your schedule. Let the candidates speak - that's what the American people want.

Unexpected, unregulated moments. That's what the best of debates are about.

=============================

First Republican Debate (MSNBC): The Top Three Are Still in the Lead - But Three Others Don't Believe in Evolution! - May 3, 2007

And now to the Republican debate on MSNBC tonight, for which I want to give the same kind of performance analysis as I did for the Democratic debate last week - that is, how presidentially the candidates presented themselves, as distinct from whether or not I agree with their positions.

Except - I just have to say - did you see that three Republicans raised their hands to signify that they did not believe in evolution? And, once again, the camera did not move in close enough. From what I could see, it wasn't Giuliani or McCain and I'm pretty sure it wasn't Romney at the other end. But three others Republican candidates did raise their hands. (Matt Caverill notes in a comment to this post that a site has identified the three as Sen. Sam Brownback, Gov. Mike Huckabee, and Rep. Tom Tancredo.) The mind boggles - I thought for a second I was watching The Tudors, except that is more entertaining...

But as for the rest of the debate: the three frontrunners - Giuliani, McCain, and Romney (currently in the descending order in the polls) - did fine. There were no real upsets there. Giuliani could have been a little more dynamic, and perhaps lost a bit of ground to McCain. Mitt Romney certainly looked and sounded the best, in terms of the Democratic JFK standard. But if I had to pick a winner, I'd say McCain by a hair over Giuliani, with Romney very impressive.

My admiration for the constitutionality of Ron Paul has been stated often in this blog, and it was a pleasure to hear him talk about need for declarations of war tonight, and the importance he places on freedom of expression. But he's not a dynamic speaker, and I think the best we can hope for regarding Dr. Paul is that whoever is next President of the United States appoint Ron Paul to some important cabinet position where he can remind us, more effectively than as Congressman, of the need for our goverment to follow the Constitution.

And a last point about the media, and in particular its presentation of this debate: although I like Chris Matthews as an interviewer on his Hardball show, I was annoyed with the way he cut off so many of the candidates' answers. The American people would have been better served by a debate that ran a few minutes longer, in which every candidate was allowed to have a little more say.

=============================================

First Democratic Debate (MSNBC): Hillary Commands - April 26, 2007

Debates in politics always strike me as paradoxical. On the one hand, everyone knows that what a candidate says in a debate has little to do with actual performance in office. On the other hand, it does provide us, the voters, with a sense of who the candidate is. And, often, this sense comes less from what the candidate says and more from how the candidate says it.

By that criterion, I'd say Hillary was the clear victor in tonight's Democratic debate on MSNBC. She seemed comfortable, clear, and in control. Not that anyone else seemed out of control - with the exception of former Senator Gravel - but Hillary Clinton projected the most Presidential tone.

Barack Obama and John Edwards were ok, but not as assured and incisive as Hillary. Since Hilary is the front-runner, this is not good news for either man.

As for the rest, Joe Biden gets creds for the best one-word answer - "Yes" - in response to a question about whether he could keep his verbosity in check. And his praise of Hillary may have won him a place on the ticket as VP, if Hilllary gets the nomination.

It's still early days, and a lot can go right or wrong for any of the candidates. But Hillary came across as cogent and even dynamic in a tough field tonight, in which a misstep could have boosted the prospects of Obama or Edwards. If she keeps this up, she'll be hard to beat in the primaries next February.

Later debates...

June 6, 2007: Third Republican Debate: Romney's Null Set

and see also Something New: Supporting the Best Candidates in Both Parties

Three Republican Presidential Candidates Who Deny Evolution

I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the fact that a Senator (Brownback), a Governor (Huckabee), and a member of the House of Representatives (Tancredo) all raised their hands last night in the Republican Presidential Debate in response to a question about who doesn't believe in evolution.

This may be the most significant thing ever to be uncovered in any Presidential debate.

Let's look at what it means.

First, belief that the theory of evolution - Darwinian or otherwise - is by and large correct is not incompatible with faith in a Deity. Major Western religions have all accepted the possibility that the Deity created a world that evolves with life along Darwinian lines - that is, via natural selection. Since Darwin's and no other theory of evolution addresses the question of how life emerged from non-life, or how non-living material itself came to be, placing a deity at the origin of evolution is in no way contrary to the scientific theory of evolution.

Or, put otherwise - atheists, agnostics, and all manner of people of faith can accept the findings of science and agree that natural selection governs the life and death, the survival and extinction, of living organisms.

So what are Brownback, Huckabee, and Tancredo raising their hands about?

Presumably they believe in the fundamentalist, literal interpretation of Scripture, which says the world and all its life was created in six days. Unlike people of faith who accept that carbon-14 dating of fossils proves that life has been thriving on this planet for a lot longer than the time indicated in the Bible, the disbelievers of evolution reject this and lots of other strong scientific evidence, and channel their faith into Creationism, Intelligent Design, and any number of pseudo-scientific theories - pseudo because, in the end, they cannot be disproven by any evidence to anyone who wants keep faith in a literal interpretation of the Bible.

The Senator, the Governor, and the Representative are of course entitled to their views, as is any American in this free society.

But that they hold such positions of power in our country, and, moreover, are running for the most powerful single position of all - President of the United States - should give pause for thought to every American, Republican or Democratic, who values rationality and science.

Additional posts:

Going to the Candidates' Debates

Romney's Null Set