Posted on 06/07/2007 1:16:09 PM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007
There was a moment in Tuesday night's Republican presidential debate that must have caused a massive sigh of disappointment among the media. It came when former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney declined to attack Arizona senator John McCain on immigration. The day before, McCain had criticized Romney for failing to do something-or-other on that issue. Romney grinned, declared McCain his friend, and said, "I'm not going to make this a matter of personal politics."
Why the heck not? That was my reaction. It's personal squabbling among the candidates that the press was looking for. It's what Wolf Blitzer, who ably moderated the debate on CNN, was looking for. And so was I. Serious bickering, preferably by the top-tier candidates, is what makes these events interesting, fun, and worth watching. Any political debate described as polite, as Tuesday's was, is something less than exciting.
Only on rare occasions do televised debates offer moments of real insight or authentic drama. Everyone remembers (or has heard of) the Ronald Reagan-George Bush clash in a 1980 debate in Nashua, New Hampshire, over control of the microphone. There was also a wonderful moment in an Illinois debate later in 1980 between Reagan and John Anderson, who had been talking with Democratic senator Teddy Kennedy about forming a bipartisan ticket. "Do you really prefer Teddy Kennedy to me?" Reagan asked with a grin. Anderson sputtered, and you realized instantly he wasn't in Reagan's league.
The CNN debate confirmed what we already knew about the 10 Republican candidates. If it was an especially good night for anyone, that was probably McCain. He was forceful without being overbearing. "I'm going to give you a little straight talk," he responded to a young woman whose brother was killed in Iraq. She asked whether the war was worthwhile and what needed to be done before American troops could be brought home.
McCain got out of his chair, approached the audience, and looked the woman in the eye. He said her family's sacrifice was not in vain and that there would be terrible consequences if the United States loses in Iraq and the country becomes a terrorist haven. So the U.S. must win. It was the strongest answer of the debate.
McCain was also effective in defending the immigration reform bill now before the Senate that so many conservatives love to hate. Blitzer mistakenly said President Bush had "proposed" the measure. In truth, it was written by bipartisan group of a dozen senators.
I wouldn't go so far as to call McCain the winner of the debate, only that he stood out at times. Former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani also performed well, notably when he contrasted himself and other Republicans to the eight Democratic presidential candidates who'd debated in the same auditorium at St. Anselm's College in Manchester, New Hampshire, two nights earlier.
Romney was fine, too. It was clear he's figured out and was trying to emulate one of Reagan's traits: unbridled optimism. And he was pretty good at it. Most of Romney's answers included a reference to his personal optimism or his "vision" for the 21st century or the notion that Republicans are "the party of the future" or the thrilling prospect of selling American goods in Asia.
His campaign was once again the fastest with the e-mail. You have to go to your e-mail quickly after a Republican debate to beat the arrival of a Romney e-mail declaring him the winner or something close to that. Last night's e-mail, which arrived at 9:17 p.m., said Romney "stands out by debating substance." This verdict was attributed to one of his press aides.
As for the rest, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee was quick-witted. He said he seemed to be getting the questions about moral issues but that was better than getting the immoral questions. An ordained Baptist preacher, he gave an eloquent defense of the Christian belief that God created the universe and another one the sanctity of life from conception to death.
My guess is that Huckabee's skill and humor in debates, interviews, and stump speeches will give him a future in national politics. But it's unlikely to be one that involves living in the White House.
As for the rest of the candidates, Republican congressman Duncan Hunter showed once again that he's a decent guy and a serious conservative. Ex-Virginia governor Jim Gilmore reiterated that he's a conservative of unswerving principle. Republican congressman Ron Paul reprised his role as a libertarian scold. Former Wisconsin governor Tommy Thompson introduced himself as the real Thompson, not the actor. The reference was to Fred Thompson, the "Law & Order" star, former senator, and soon-to-be presidential candidate. Republican senator Sam Brownback emphasized abortion and his faith and did so quite well.
But where were the digs, the quips, the cheap shots at rivals? Where was personal animosity? It wasn't there, except for one subtle jab of Tancredo by McCain. One of the CNN questioners noted that Republican senator Judd Gregg had tarred Tancredo as a member of the "know-nothing wing of the Republican party." That wing, history buffs know, was fervently anti-immigrant in the pre-Civil War years. A bit later in the debate and out of the blue, McCain said, "I agree with Judd Gregg." That was as good as it got.
I feel inclined to e-mail Fred Barnes Hunter's "Kennedy Wing" comment. How is THAT not a jab?
Intresting how the DC Media establishement is so desperate for the Republicans to frag each other. Not seeing any such demands being made of the Democrats.
It’s not a jab because the media has decided to ignore Hunter because he seems to be a conservative.
I think the GOP plays nice because it thinks it’s got a bad hand. But the truth (at least lately) is that it’s just not playing with a full deck.
Did he not pay attention to Hunter’s last comment? That was the best jab of all!
I’d say their just a bunch of wimps. They aren’t “playing”, that’s how they really are.
Oh, he did NOT just say that. Whiskey tango foxtrot!?!
I do agree with Barnes that Hunter and Tancredo could have and should have unloaded with some indignation on McCain for the amnesty bill. Would have made the news and resonated with most Republican primary voters.
apparently Fred’s spun so much trying to push through the Amnesty bill he can’t remember what side he’s on any longer. He actually wants some one to attack the only one up there that supports his side on this?
Whisky Tango Foxtrot! India Mike Hotel Oscar, that’s a really good one!
That was from Fred Barnes, the Boy from the Beltway. What else would you expect?
Well, I agree that Duncan Hunter is “a decent guy and a serious conservative.” The comment seems a bit like a pat on the head, and I doubt the writer could reach Duncan Hunter’s head to pat on it, because Duncan Hunter would be head and shoulders above any candidate even without his 6’4”s.
He looms above the field because of his extraordinary accomplishments, his no nonsense common sense, his ability to look at a problem and come up with a valid solution. These are the qualities we need in a President. And Duncan Hunter is showing that he has them all.
It was not a jab, it was a body slam. Did Fred miss it?
Who was that Demokrat he used to go up against in that `Point-Counterpoint’ thing, back when he was a Republican? Bob Beckle (sp?)
They probably agree on most things now: Rudy. Juan McCain.
His master Bill’s voice . . .
I think Open Border fred needs to shut his pie hole.
I’ve been very impressed with Rep. Hunter. I wonder if he’s being slighted intentionally, or if Barnes and others don’t realize the depth of his comments.
I say this from my position of being as yet undecided.
>I do agaree with Barnes that Hunter and Tancredo ould have and should have unloaded with some indignation on McCain for the amnesty bill.<
Oh, too bad. You and Fred Barnes must have missed it. Rep. Hunter unloaded royally on Giuliani, McCain AND Romney. He itemized each of them, and lumped them into the “Kennedy Republican” category. And it definitely resonated with a good round of applause!
WAY TO GO, DUNCAN HUNTER!
Barnes lives in an alternate universe. Any relation his comments have in relation to our reality are purely coincidental.
LOL! That was "Brilliant".
“...Wolf Blitzer, who ably moderated the debate on CNN”
Ably moderated, Fred? Only if there were just the ‘big three’ candidates at the debate. Blitzer cut everyone else out of the loop.It was a joke.
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.