Posted on 05/04/2007 9:01:44 AM PDT by presidio9
Despite the 100 laptops urgently typing away here in the press room, it’s hard to say much really happened tonight at the first Republican presidential primary debate.
The early campaign's Big Three — McCain, Romney and Rudy — all performed well and avoided any deadly mistakes.
None of the dark horse candidates broke through, although several performed credibly and probably increased interest in their campaigns.
Each of the Big Three had their strong moments.
John McCain made the biggest strategic move of the night, reaching back out to the center with a blunt appraisal of the Bush administration’s many mistakes in the Iraq war and expressing strong support for stem cell research.
While these issues are not GOP primary orthodoxy, McCain is never going to be the perfect Republican base candidate. By reaching back to his reformist, centrist roots, a feisty McCain clearly is making a move to reconnect with independent voters.
I think this is a shrewd move, because the authentic McCain is the most impressive McCain to voters, even conservative primary voters.
After a troubling several weeks, McCain is showing his campaign can adjust and improve.
Rudy Giuliani integrated his record of New York City successes into current national problems. But his performance was not as strong as his polling position.
Mitt Romney was smooth and probably won some new admirers for his presidential style.
That said, each had a stumble or two.
McCain had a Yosemite Sam moment early in the debate as he vowed to deposit Osama bin Laden into the gates of hell.
Rudy got tied up in the sharp end of abortion politics with a cloudy answer about his position on Roe v. Wade. He’ll need to get a lot crisper to survive the campaign.
Mitt Romney fumbled a bit on a very predictable question about his evolution on the abortion issue, essentially repeating his answer twice in an awkward loop.
Among the other candidates, Sam Brownback had a particularly strong night. He talked with passion and elegance about the social issues that are the backbone of his candidacy.
Surprisingly, Congressman Tom Tancredo didn’t hammer the powerful immigration issue.
The bottom line: 90 minutes, 10 candidates, no knockouts, no big changes.
I liked Romney’s line about Osama “He is going to pay and he will die.”
Duncan hunter probably gained the 2nd most from it just by getting some name recognition.
He inserted himself where appropriate and got his face into the public view.
Romney looked and sounded presidential. Gulliani definitely did not.
McCain just sounded angry, at every question.
Tommy Thompson was so stiff I thought he was going to break like a potato chip.
If Ron Paul had a snowballs chance of winning, I'd vote for him simply because I'd know exactly what I was getting.
The rest were pretty forgettable.
Find me an article covering last night's debate that even mentions Hunter having been there last night. This one didn't, and it was written by a Republican. I was hoping Hunter would do something, anything to distinguish himself last night, and I think he failed miserably. I'm not saying he's a bad person, he's just not much of a politician. He's going to get maybe two more shots at this type of debate, and then he will be finished, because the netorks will limit participation to candidates who are polling at 10% or higher.
Where I give him credit is that he inserted himself several times, got his face on the screen, and let the American people actually see him to associate a face with the name.
Wishful thinking. They're mentioning Thompson all of the time now, and he's not even in the race yet.
The guy I thought did the most for himself is Huckabee, but on principal I can't see myself voting for an Arkansas governor.
Who won? See my tag line.
Hmmm... If that were my criterion, I'd vote for Al Gore. ;-)
But I'm not sure how you can say you know what Ron Paul stands for. He was a Repupblican, and then a Libertarian. Now he is a Republican again, and when he loses this election, he will likely be a Libertarian again. (Or will he?) Sometimes I have a hard time telling him apart from the moveon.org moonbats.
Why does everyone think that a letter before your name makes a difference in the way you respond to an issue?
As a whole, the letter in front of your name shows HOW you might respond to an issue but it doesn't mean you're going to change that response because the letter changes. (See Michael Bloomberg)
It wouldn't matter a hill of beans if I had an (R), (D), (L), or an (I) in front of my name, I would still think the same.
So if I asked him to which party he belonged, he would give the same answer he gave in 1988? This only means that his switching back to the Republican Party is a ruse for political purposes and not a matter of principle. Ronald Reagan switched parties from Dem to Rep out of principle. Why has Ron Paul switched from Rep to Lib and back to Rep? It cannot be for the same reason.
Besides this giving consistently wrong answers isn't a virtue. Do you think he might rethink his answer regarding Scooter Libby last night? He actually said that Libby deserves to go to jail for his part in our going to war against Iraq! True libertarians don't jail people for political differences. Libertarian Party members might, and that explains the difference.
“The guy I thought did the most for himself is Huckabee, but on principal I can’t see myself voting for an Arkansas governor.”
What “principal” keeps you from voting for an Arkansas governor? I don’t even like that food-nazi, pro-illegal rat Huckabee, but that seems like an odd statement. Is it something related to Clinton?
#20 on this thread says it all, doesn’t it? Rudy Giuliani gets nailed on his own quotes and statements, and tapdances around it.
Rudy Giuliani: “For New York city, I support gun control and government funded abortions. Everywhere else, I oppose it, except for a few big liberal cities that also want it. But no in rural areas opposed to it.”
Giuliani makes John F. Kerry look like the model of consistency.
The most credible of the bunch was former Governor of Virgninia Jim Gilmore. He kicked butt and sounded the most level headed. Why is he not getting more press?
Memo to SeeBS: This is debate is for a Republican primary, not the general election. The consensus among conservatives is that Rudy bombed, Romney showed well without substance, and McCain couldn't save himself to save himself.
There’s nothing like a little croppy flop on the riverbank.
Excellent, thanks NapkinUser.
Fascinating. Maybe it’s an unbiased indicator of who actually did “win” the debate.
Told ya..lol
You should add that to Jim’s Giuliani truth file. Its his own words and proves his flippin floppin and outright lying.
Don’t depend on Romney being unelectable because of the Mormon thing. Americans are amazingly forgiving on the issue of personal faith.
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.