Posted on 05/21/2007 7:36:36 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Most people following politics already read a lot about last night's GOP debate, so I'll try to keep my comments short here, with maybe just a few words about the candidates. First, the front-runners:
Mitt Romney was quite good, and clearly was the best of the front-runners. He didn't make any obvious errors, handled the question about his apparent flip-flop on abortion well, and generally seemed polished and impressive. He went out of his way to emphasize that Americans should care about the character of people (and whether they are people of faith) rather than specifically what church or synagogue they're members of. And, for what it's worth, he was the best looking candidate up there. Usually I would say that would be worth something, especially in trying to capture women voters, but I have a feeling that women will generally avoid voting for a Mormon, fairly or not. I did not like Romney's suggesting a zero capital gains tax rate "for the middle class", rather than for everyone. Overall Romney did a good job, was animated, positive, mostly intelligent, and was the best of the three leading candidates.
John McCain had some good moments, including his willingness to follow Osama bin Laden "to the gates of hell". He was strong and seemed fairly presidential, but he seemed excessively aggressive, frequently going over his alotted time, and constantly pointing his index finger at the audience (or camera) when he spoke. Although he repeatedly went after the issue of government spending, which I appreciated, he almost came across as a bully, or at least a bull in a china shop. Also, I would say he occasionally seemed...old. Overall, I'd say the debate was roughly a neutral for him, but if I had to say it was positive or negative, I'd say it was negative.
Rudy Giuliani got the worst of this debate, in my view. He gave a confused answer on Roe v Wade, saying it "would be OK" if it were overturned and then implying it would be equally OK with him if it weren't. I am pro-choice, but Roe is clearly bad law and should be overturned with regulation of abortion (and almost everything else that government regulates) left to the states as their own "laboratories of democracy". Someone who wants to be President has to be able to take a stand on an issue that important, especially when he knows its the issue that most GOP primary voters are uncertain about when it comes to him. He said the Alternative Minimum Tax needed to be "adjusted" where the others who mentioned it said it should be eliminated. He gave a wishy-washy answer on the Terri Schiavo case, saying it should have been decided in a court. (Either the government had a role there or it didn't...and in case you're confused, the answer is it didn't.) Giuiliani seemed less energized and less charismatic than he usually does, and I think the debate was a negative for him.
Of the non-front-runners, I really enjoyed the libertarian Congressman Dr. Ron Paul, not that he has any chance of winning anything beyond his Congressional district. He is truly a principled guy...and has been for years. He argued repeatedly for restricting government to what it is constitutionally permitted to do, something no other candidate did even when they complained about spending. He talked about "original intent" of the Constitution. Why does nobody else? Ron Paul was the only one to argue for a non-interventionist foreign policy, and that America shouldn't be the world's policeman. And one of his best answers came when he was asked whether he would eliminate the IRS. His answer was (and I'm quoting as best I can) "Immediately. But you can only do that if you change peoples' ideas on what the role of government ought to be. If you believe government should take care of you from cradle to grave, and that we should police the world...then you'll never get rid of the IRS." I'm pleased to say that as I write this, Ron Paul is getting the most positive votes on the MSNBC web site following the debate (with almost 8,000 votes so far) with Mitt Romney a fairly distant second. It's probably not highly representative of Republican primary voters but it gives some hope that there is a libertarian streak still alive in Americans.
I thought Tom Tancredo did a decent job, although he looked down a little too early and often, and he should have been more animated. He made good points about immigration, of course, and made it clear that he is a man of principle and showed a sense of humor. He was also the only candidate to point out that pork-barrel spending is an insignificant percentage of the budget, and that it's entitlements that need to be addressed. (I'm slightly biased because I've met Tancredo a few times and I like him, even if I don't always agree with him.) That said, I can't claim that he came across as truly presidential.
The other guys: Governors Gilmore, Huckabee, and Thompson, Congressman Hunter, and Senator Brownback were all fine (although Thompson massively understated the number of soldiers injured in Iraq), but they basically seemed like background noise. Of them, I thought Gilmore was the best, emphasizing his history of consistent conservatism.
One fascinating moment occured when a questioner asked for a show of hands of the candidates which of them did not believe in evolution. The hands that went up were Brownback, Huckabee, and Tancredo. Personally, that's enough for me to immediately eliminate those guys from consideration. Even my most religious friend (a Catholic who is probably reading this) believes in evolution, and, for me, anyone who doesn't simply can't be taken seriously. To be clear, I am not saying that I would eliminate from consideration anyone who believes in creation but rather that regardless of someone's belief on the origin of life, evolution (i.e. how life developed after it started) is too obviously true, even if we don't understand all of it, not to be believed in.
My overall review of the debate is that there were far too many participants. I really liked having Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo there because they really move the debate and bring up fundamental questions and issues whereas the other guys' rhetoric tends to blend into one big political blob. But at the end of the day, it's essentially impossible for either of them to become the party's nominee. For future debates, I'd like to see no more than 4 or 5 candidates, the ones most likely to be able to win.
If I had to vote for someone based on the debate, I would vote for Ron Paul.
One thing I really liked was the consistent theme among the candidates that Ronald Reagan's optimism and view that America was great because of its people, not because of government. [You simply never hear optimism (or at least not believable optimism) from Democrats, in no small part because they do not have faith in people. If they did, they would not believe in the policies they suggest which always put government as the solution because "we the people" are obviously not smart enough to make our own decisions.]
Finally, I'd suggest that the race for the Republican nomination is screaming for the entry of former Senator Fred Dalton Thompson. Particularly given the debate taking place in the Ronald Reagan library, Senator Thompson would have the same movie star quality, the same sort of personable character, and, despite a mistake or two in his legislative career, a commitment to limited government and federalism, the lack of which is the biggest problem in American government today. Given the mediocre performance by John McCain and the bad performance by Rudy Giuliani, and with the apparent positive reaction of viewers to Ron Paul (many of whose views I think Thompson shares), tonight's debate could easily be the thing which convinces Thompson to jump in. I hope he does.
----------------------------------------------------
Ross Kaminsky is a fellow of the Heartland Institute. He earned a Political Science degree from Columbia University in 1987 and has been published in The New York Times, The Denver Post, The LA Times, and other major newspapers around the country. His blog can be found at http://www.rossputin.com
I saw a clip on FOX earlier where Lindsey Graham called everyone who opposes the Immigration bill a BIGOT.
Not trying to change the subject. Just wanted to point out that Graham, a McCain supporter, is now on the record as saying Fred! is a BIGOT. I wonder if this is his goal. To hurt Fred!, Romney, and the other candidates that oppose that bill. To help McCain.
Had me for a minute there, then he revealed a total lack of understanding on many levels with this gem:
>apparent positive reaction of viewers to Ron Paul (many of whose views I think Thompson shares)<
Not sure I understand the hype about this Ron Paul guy. Is it the non-interventionist stuff and the government just doing what’s outlined in the Constitution?
The non-intervention stuff sounds great. I feel that way myself from time to time, until I consider what happens later. The strong crackpot governments fight it out with the weaker ones while we sit around and do nothing. The strongest survive and probably go for the big (nuclear) strike...us. I’m all for letting these third world despots kill each other, but what about when the dust settles and they get bored? They just leave us alone?
Getting rid of the entitlements and the IRS and everything not outlined in the Constitution sounds good too, but I’d like to hear some knowlegable ideas on what happens to our economy afterwards. Happily ever after is nice, but we need to look at what happens later.
On a personal level, I wasn’t impressed with the guy. He looked nervous and he had the shakes. Not presidential at all.
I would peg Kaminsky as a fifth-columnist as goes any of his Republican “leanings and/or affliliations” - probably why he has apparently appeared in the NYT.
Of course he may just be a fool - which would also qualify him for the NYT.
GRPPL ping
I didn’t bother and watch the GOP debates, my vote is going to Fred Thompson.
I think Ron Paul’s popularity will grow as more and more people read what he has to say on the internet. If the GOP splits and destroys itself from within {which I beleive is coming soon} then the Conservative party formed from the ruins will need someone like Ron Paul and will be seeking such.
This is happening now. What I like about this election is that people will be able to see and hear him with the improved streaming audio and video technology so widely available.
In before mom
Fredipedia: The definitive Fred Thompson Resource
Please FReepmail jellybean if you want on/off this list. WARNING: This ping list is EXTREMELY active.
Only because I opened several and missed one when I was multiple-pinging. :P
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.