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.
Yes, he did. He also got in the last word.
Closing Lines of Rudy and Fred Jim Geraghty
Giuliani: "In foreign affairs… just like in the affairs of people, self-interest is a factor.”
Uh, could Giuliani please avoid talking about self-interest in “the affairs of people”?
The crowd doesn’t like Wendell Goler’s question to Fred, “Some people say you’re lazy, sir. How do you respond.”
After some murmurs, Fred says, “Nah that’s okay. Let me answer that… I was a father 17, a husband at the age of 17. Worked in a factory. Borrowed, got some help from my folks, they came in from the farm. I was able to be an assistant U.S. attorney at 28." He recites his career, and concludes, “If a man can do all that and be lazy, well, I’d strongly recommend it. And I should add, most important, I’m the father of five. Two of ‘em under the age of four.”
Great answer.
Cool...thanks for posting...I really wanted to watch.
I'm torn on that. I absolutely oppose states making agreements with other countries (or states in other countries) -- that would seem 'way beyond the proper Constitutional powers of states. I'm unsure about whether states have the Constitutional power to make such agreements with other US states, though (based on an originalist Founders' perspective). It's something I need to study -- I've done a lot of reading on the original view of the Commerce Clause, but more as it relates to federal encroachment on state powers. One advantage I do see to states making pacts to address bogus problems (vs. the feds addressing bogus problems nationwide) is that at least in the former case, we test out what works and what doesn't in our state laboratories. That's cold-comfort for those living in the lab, though. If states are Constitutionally permitted to band together, it would also be interesting to see what would happen if they did so in pursuit of a positive goal. If it's good for the global warming goose, then maybe it would be good for, say, the pro-life gander (e.g., if Roe were repealed, several states band together to make sure abortion is not legal in an entire region). That may not be a great example -- tired brain!
That was good but more recently, Fred says he thinks climate change is real and that we have to come up with a solution "on a global basis," with India and China participating. He, admittedly, is more guarded than the whackos out there saying "the debate is over," but I want to hear more. His words thus far are not encouraging. In fact, I haven't heard anyone but Duncan at this point say anything good on this subject.
No, that's not encouraging. I'd like to hear more, as well. What did Duncan say?
Thanks for your comments folks.
I just responded to someone else on this topic. You may want to check it out. In it, I go into some detail why I think it’s time we take a stand. You may continue to differ with me, but at least you’ll have heard why at least one person won’t be playing along this year.
Feel free to disagree if you like.
Take care.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1914434/posts?page=178#178
Are you sure it wasn’t me? I do try to stay on my meds when posting, but... ;-)
Nice post. To those who see sovreignty concerns as a tin foil issue, I respectfully offer this:
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security.
- Edmund Burke
Bump! That’s one heckova speech!
I agree that Rudy won clearly this debate . His quick wit and brilliant retorts about Hillary went over very well. He also mentioned an issue that has received almost no attention in this race -Home Schooling. This is an important issue to many Americans, and Rudy has always supported it, as one of the many choices that should be available to parents. The Dems want to make it illegal.
Huckabee came in second, but has problems in areas of Free Trade and Immigration.
McCain did well, but his “I respect Hillary” routine drews boos, and will certainly be dropped from his repertoire.
Romney is always sharp on policy issues, but still comes across as slick, promgrammed, and too perfect.
Sorry to say, but Fred turned in a totally acceptable, but very lackluster performance, leaving nothing in particular to take saway from this debate.
Rudy has the great skill of knowing every single phrase Hillary Clinton has ever uttered, and being able to recall at will, and throw it right back at her. His Hillary quote “ I have a million programs, but America can’t afford them” is an excellent example.
Maybe Rudy has been reading FR.
I had to go collect the links:
• Global Warming (See question #1)
• LOST (see question #13--same thread as above)
• Kelo (see question #6)
Thank you Ellery. I’m glad it made sense to you.
Take care.
Thank you. I appreciate it. Have a great night.
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.
-
that’s what makes Fred a conservative.
Duncan Hunter didn’t propose his trade policy because of national security. He’s a big government mercantilist and would also be against free trade with allies like Columbia even though it would vastly help that country rid itself of drugs.
On the other hand, many libertarians wouldn’t even consider national security and have us trade with Iran and North korea.
Maybe Rudy has been reading FR.
-
not hard enough.
but he does seem to know what it takes to be a fighter. I want to see more of that from fred. That’s why people are now looking at romney and huck even though they don’t exactly have solid conservative resumes...
Intrade no longer gets American money, last time I checked.
Years ago when I was a small town reporter I learned that to get the real interview with country men, you had to walk with them. Fred Thompson seems to be that kind of fellow - he has that southern/western/country cadence. He’s the type that will impart real wisdom while walking down to the barn or leaning over the fence with his neighbor. He is out of his element in the quick paced debate world of the sound byte. He needs to pick up the rythm there. Better yet, he needs to take advantage of his natural cadence -the sincerity and soft humor he has and connect with the average Joe on a real level. That is why people say he reminds them of Ronald Regan. It is that country sort of realism that is very independent and down to earth. It is a sort of calmness and confidence.
Perhaps he could have a few walks down to the corral interviews on a website that would give him a venue that would use his cadence to advantage and where voters could discover his larger views about federalism and other big picture perspectives.
I still think that he has it over all the other front runners on sincerity.
I don't believe standing on principle is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I wont vote for a pro-death candidate under any circumstances.
I know pro-gay Julie will become a born-again conservative before it's over,
but I don't think the act will fool anyone.
naa just wait to see what Rudy will do after he wins the nomination. he will have no limits
IMO, it was another lousy debate that answered No specific questions.
Fox did a lousy job.
Ok. So aside from our production lines, what are the Chinese buying from us? The little guy, now, not the PLA.
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.