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.
Well said.
not hardly. he was ok, but it was not some clear and convincing win for giuliani. of course frank luntz tried to make it appear so, on H&C afterwards, by focusing on those rudyfans in his focus group and acting like it was a consensus.
“Tuned in conservatives will never vote for Rudy”
- If by “tuned in” you mean far right, religious fanatics you are absolutely correct. In the meantime, Rudy has taken a head count and believes that the number of moderate, middle of the road voters far outnumber the so called tuned in conservatives and thinks that the numbers are on his side. We shall see.
They were an impressive bunch and we have the job of trying to choose just one. We're in good shape.
Yours is a great post. Thank you.
thread placer
BTT
Paul looked nutty, as usual.
Hunter, in the brief time that I saw him, did well.
Thompson was serious and had a good grasp of the issues. As usual, he seemed the adult of the group.
McCain did fine, although I didn't see much of him.
I didn't see any of the others.
Reagan didn't have a Republican Congress to back him up, if he had we would have a much different and far better America than it is today. He was forced to compromise with the Dems in Congress who hated him and everything he stood for in order to get anything he wanted. OTOH, GW Bush had several years with a Republican Congress and hasn't accomplished 1/4 as much good work as RR did while fighting Tip O'Neil and a Democrat Congress at the same time.
I'm not anti-Bush. He has been a true stalwart on pro-life issues, which is my greatest concern since I believe the future of the nation depends on whether or not we end the American version of Hitler's holocaust, and he has done some good on other important issues. Overall I believe he is a good man with a good heart, but he doesn't seem to "get it" on some issues such as immigration and globalism. As I said, he was done well on some things, but on way too many other issues his train has run off the tracks.
Then I guess you may be staying home on election night, eh??
Seriously and honestly, though:
What are those things you LIKE about Rudy?
I'd really like to hear...
- John
Fred was also a successful enough attorney to: win a $200,000 judgment against Stephan, who abandoned plans to run for governor because of the controversy. Stephan avoided paying by declaring bankruptcy
As for Fred being a liberal apologist, that's a desperate yet laughable comment. As for poor historian, I rather think that description fits you quite nicely.
“what are the Chinese buying from us”
I sell them a lot of nice, high end, horses of various kinds (quarter and TB), along with UAE guys.
Actually, Thompson voted to convict.
Yes, Romney is probably "leading" right now based on projected results in early caucuses/primaries.
I think it was Huckabee that said after the debate about Ron Paul that Paul was the only Libertarian running. That is why he always “wins” these events according to the public. If one Democrat was also running, then they would win the polls.
Huckabee actually won the debate IMHO.
Thanks for the info.
You might be interested in this:
“He (Hunter) said China rebates its own taxes on all of its exported goods, and then imposes taxes on American imports, thus providing about a $34 advantage for every $100 of actual value of its own products. The United States, though, does not impose import duties of that sort, nor does it rebate the taxes on our own exports.
“Republicans are the party of markets, but we’re not the party of dumb markets,” he said. “Trade agreements are business deals, and it is more important than ever that we have smart business deals. What I am proposing is not protectionism, it’s just reciprocity. And it is important because they are using the trade to develop 75-100 short-range and medium-range ballistic missiles each year and to construct a large number of submarines....That’s ominous.”’
excerpt from: http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11188
I know that he’s not running, but one can always hope- he does have a book that’s just been announced- http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1914457/posts
No apology needed, this is what this forum is for, open lively discussion. I grew up in the South and slow down there does not necessarily mean lazy just measured and thoughtful. As I said I would vote for and support Fred vigorously if he is the nominee. He just isn’t my first choice because I don’t believe that today’s campaign arena fits his style.
When he can sit one on one and has the time to flesh out his opinions he is very effective, but that is not the way things are done today.
Sadly you are exactly right. We have friends, one of who is a dean’s list graduate, who is 47 y/o and didn’t know the US had ever fought a civil war. However ask her what Paris’s dogs name is and she can tell you not only that, but how much the jeweled collar cost. Is that a sad state of affairs, yes. Does it negatively impact how we are governed, yes. Can we just blow it off and say it doesn’t matter, no.
Now the plus side of all this is that there may actually be people who vote for Fred because of his TV/movie roles. Think of how many people thought Martin Sheen was a great president and would probably vote for him if he ran because he was so good as a president on TV.
You have hit it exactly on the head. I grew up with these people so I know of what you speak and is what I am trying to convey. I love what Fred has to say, but he is not really well suited to today’s arena. Even RR was a little better in the debate format of today.
I will support Fred if he is the nominee and think he would be a good president, much better than anyone the Dems can put forward. My concern is that he might not get the chance.
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.