Posted on 10/21/2007 8:35:38 PM PDT by jellybean
Everybody Was Good; Fred, Rudy, and Huck Were Best Wow. By far, the best debate of the cycle in either party. Just about everybody came out swinging, took some lumps, countered, made the crowd laugh, spurred applause, and jabbed at the moderators. The crowd was fired up, and the moderators took an aggressive tack that shook any lingering lethargy out of the candidates. Feel confident, Republicans. One way or another, the GOP is going to have a good debater representing it next year.
Winner or winners? Tough to call, because I think we saw just about every candidate at their best tonight, even the no-hopers like Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo. So I’ll classify the participants a bit differently this evening:
Helped Themselves a Lot Tonight:
Fred Thompson: Frankly, he needed it. He really should have gotten a bigger chunk of the vote at the Family Research Council summit straw poll, and let’s face it, we had been waiting for any speech, any debate appearance, any event with Thompson to be a “wow, that was fantastic.” Well, tonight was that moment we’ve been waiting for, maybe none better than his answer to Wendell Goler’s question/accusation of laziness. His answer on the lobbying for the abortion group was strong, too – ‘look at my votes, and the pro-choice folks I worked for are pulling this out now because they fear me.’ Finally – finally! – we’re seeing what we wanted to see in Thompson – homespun, able to make his case simply, directly, and clearly, and with a bit of humor here and there.
Rudy Giuliani: The first time I thought Rudy Giuliani could be president was at his 2004 convention speech, where he hit all kinds of emotional notes just right. Similar performance tonight – maybe heavy on laughs - but it worked. Pugnacious, quick thinker on his feet, engaging. And, as usual, if you lead the polls, and nobody walks out of a debate talking about your gaffes or bad answers (and other than a slightly weird joke about not being sure that he didn’t accidentally perform a gay marriage, Rudy didn’t have many bad moments) you won. Rudy won’t lose ground; this is a candidate and a campaign hitting all cylanders at just the right time. He took some shots, but the attacks were probably old news to those following the race day in, day out.
Mike Huckabee: After the FRC summit, he’s the social conservative choice, and if he gets the nomination, Hillary won’t know what hit her. This guy can sell ice to Eskimos. Kept his momentum, and played against his "the funny one" typecasting with his argument, "there's nothing funny about Hillary Clinton as Commander in Chief."
Probably Helped Themselves a Little Tonight:
John McCain: Some great lines, and once again, a candidate felt the need to salute McCain’s service in the miltiary as well as in the Senate. We’ll see if this performance does him good in the polls – he did a great speech at the FRC, and it got him nowhere. I think the aspect I liked most was that he could jab at his rivals, but it never seemed too nasty or cranky. He’s got stature. He’s a well-established brand name, and I wonder if he’s turning into everyone’s second or third choice.
Mitt Romney: One of his strongest performances, but it seemed like somebody put a “kick me” sign on his back right before he went on. On the other hand, it’s a sign of where he is in the race that Thompson, Giuliani, and McCain see value in attacking him at this moment. Kathryn said he could have used the PowerPoint slides on one answer. But great jabs at Hillary, and seemed to feed off the crowd's energy.
Oh, and I vote for the mussed-up hair.
Thanks For Playing: Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, and Ron Paul. Come back when you’re at ten percent in one of the early primary states or a national poll.
UPDATE: In my e-mailbox, every campaign thinks their guy won. I know this will come as a great surprise to you. I pledge, any campaign that sends me an e-mail: "EXPERTS AGREE: OUR GUY LOST, BIG-TIME; PUNDITS CALL PERFORMANCE 'CATASTROPHIC' AND 'EMBARRASSING" I will print in this space in its entirety.
As I stated, Best evidence shows that Fred Thompson lost and Huckabee won. It’s a snapshot.
See for yourself at Intrade.
http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/contractSearch/
As far as I can tell, it’s the best way to determine the winner with an unbiased approach.
The MSM Template is now out.
The word is to “snuf” Thompson by omission.
I want a president that will make islam think 'allah, he's even worse than Boosh'.
Take the current President, filter out all the things I like about him, and you end up with Mike Huckabee and the word “nucular”.
Beautiful post, in it’s entirety.
Please, repeat it often.
how does that work and why could that not be manipulated any differently than a ronpaul response to phone poll.
NO GIULIANI = NO PROBLEM!
It’s people who put their money where their mouth is. They think someone’s gonna win, they buy the position and sell when the guy wins. Their position becomes worthless if he loses. It’s a futures market for politics.
If anyone can astroturf this market, it’s a guy with a lot of money followers. Maybe someone like Soros could do it, but it’s no fun to pour money down a rathole.
Excuse me- Gomer Pyle was married to Rock Hudson (known as Rock Pyle).....
I mentioned nothing about his being lazy or having a trophy wife. I did say he looks and talks like someone who is much older than others running who are in the same age group. As for being sick in fact we all know he is though there is some dispute as to how sick and what effect it might have on his campaign or possible administration. I could also add my concern about his admitted work on the McCain-Feingold incumbent security bill, his work against tort reform legislation and his lack of executive experience. Playing a president in a movie does not give you the experience you get from running a state, large city or a business. One of my biggest complaint about the Dem candidates other than their positions on every issue I can think of is their general lack of any real world executive experience. 10 years as a senator, a stint as a prosecuting attorney and a tv/movie career are not substitutes for real world experience actually running something where you are responsible for day to day management decisions. There is a reason they call it the EXECUTIVE branch.
I have watched all the debates on both sides and feel solidly that anyone on the stage tonight is better than anyone the Dems can put forward(well maybe not Ron who I sometimes think is running for the wrong party’s nomination), that doesn’t change the fact that I do not think at this time Fred is our best choice. If we are going to beat the Clinton machine we are going to need someone who is energetic, quick on their feet and who shows well in today’s media. Obviously you will disagree with me on this, but I don’t think Fred is that person. Will I vote for him if he wins the nomination you bet I will. In fact I will work for him and give him money. Will I vote for him in the primary no. My guess is you will. Good for you. That is what makes our party better than that other one, we have great choices. And regardless of who wins our primary we will still have the best candidate.
And since you brought up the trophy wife issue just let me say that as a 56 year old man I give any man a big thumbs up who gets the chance to marry a beautiful young woman and raise a family with her, but that prowess won’t influence my vote in the primary.
What do you get for buying a winner after the election? that makes no sense. the election is over ALL positions like tht are worthless.
Amen to that, plus the one that few respect, RP, needs to go too.
Huckabee is the only one I have heard speak out against LOST.
On that alone, he gets major kudos from me.
Well, don’t take my word for it, but here’s my understanding.
Let’s say Thompson is offered at $11 today. You think he’ll win ( or at least go much higher) and so you buy 100 options at $11. I think the max per player is $5000. So when Thompson gets to $22 you sell & make $1100 profit, or if you hold & stay & he wins outright you get $100 ($7800 profit) and all others get $0.
Futures Markets are hot stuff — pretty reliable at predicting results, so far.
He is the funny one if he believes in the kook Fair Sales Tax Scam.
huckabeen is being handed the ronpaul batton.
Huckabee is the new Ronpaul
bttt
True. Thompson generally does believe in free trade. However, he has acted in ways that demonstrate that he recognizes that there's a balance between free trade and national security. I've listed one example below. Another is Thompson's opposition to the Export Control Act of 2001, when he vehemently opposed loosening restrictions on what technology we could export to China -- he wrote letters, he tried to amend the bill, he argued vigorously on the senate floor -- but ultimately he was one of only 14 senators to vote against the bill (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00275 ).
I completely and respectfully understand that this does not go nearly far enough (and may be completely unacceptable) for many folks, including many Hunter supporters. I'm not trying to start an argument about this issue -- I just wanted to flesh out Thompson's stance a little bit for the record.
Congratulations on Hunter's performance tonight -- he did an outstanding job with the little time he was given.
---------
Here's the summary of Thompson's amendment to the Permanent Trade Status bill -- his amendment (which the senate killed) protected our right to impose trade sanctions related to China's development of WMDs and other weaponry:
Amdt. No. 4132: To provide for the application of certain measures to covered countries in response to the contribution to the design, production, development, or acquisition of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons or ballistic or cruise missiles.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=2&vote=00242
Here are some of his introductory remarks that give some insight into his thinking on this bill: "So it is a gamble. It is a gamble on our part that by gradually lowering these barriers to trade, by gradually opening up society, this trade will lead to a gradual opening up of society with the Internet and what not, additional travel and additional exchange programs and additional trade; that we will wake up one day and China will be a democratic society. And in the meantime, we will maintain their friendship so that the world will not be a more dangerous place but a less dangerous place.
That is the gamble we are making because clearly if this is carried out the way that people on both sides hope it will be, China will become even more powerful economically with all those great numbers of people, and therefore they will become much more powerful militarily. You only have to read a little bit of what is coming out of China these days by their intelligentsia concerning military plans and their view of the United States and the fact that many in their country see conflict as inevitable, and that they are laying the firm economic groundwork so that they can have a growing and more powerful military in the future. That should be of great concern to us. We are limited as to what we can do about that.
So we take this gamble, before that comes into fruition--if that is their path--that they can open up that society somewhat and lead to a more open society, a democratic society. On the other hand, the Chinese are taking a gamble in that they can open up economic trade somewhat, and they can adopt a more capitalistic society and still maintain dictatorial control from the top, and that it will not get away from them. Our people say that once that starts happening, once we get in there, there will be no stopping it; democracy is right down the road.
The Chinese don't see it that way. They are gambling. I think it is a gamble worth taking. I think it is a gamble worth taking because of our leadership and free markets and free economies and democratic society in this country. I think we should go down that road and we should take that chance. And I am not sure we have much of an option in that regard. But while we take that chance, we should be very mindful of the dangers that are presented to this country down the road from China and others. And we should be especially mindful of one particular category of Chinese conduct right now of all the categories that concern us, including human rights, religious freedom, and all the rest.
The one particular category that poses a mortal threat to the welfare of this Nation has to do with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The fact is that while we are willing to take this chance and we go down the road to trade with China, they are engaging in activities that pose a mortal danger to the welfare of this country. That is the subject of the amendment that I have just offered.
The China nonproliferation amendment seeks to do something about this. I have sought to have a separate vote on this amendment because I don't consider it to be a trade-related amendment. I have sought, for about a month now, to have a debate in the context of our relationship with China but not to have it as an amendment to PNTR. I have been thwarted in that effort. I only have two choices--either relenting altogether or doing what I said I would do; that is, filing it as an amendment to PNTR. Well, that choice is obvious. I have made that choice today because of the importance that I attach to it...
It is inconceivable to me that while we discuss trade issues and a new relationship with China, we will not address what China is doing to endanger our country. It is just that simple. That is what this amendment does.
I know people in this body want to pass PNTR. They do not want any complications. They want to get it done, wrapped up; the President wants his legacy, and we want to please our friends in the business community; and we all know trade is a good thing, and so forth. But it is inconceivable to me that we can address these trade-related issues and embrace our new trading partner--China--in a new regime without also addressing and doing something about the fact that they are making this world, and particularly the United States, a more dangerous place to live. The Federal Government's first responsibility is national security.
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.