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.
Yeah, but in that case it will be... well nevermind. LOL
You take care.
Here we are again, running our election based on opposing the democrat candidate rather than supporting someone who actually represents our views. Do we forget that Hillary has a large number of folks in her own party and the center/independent who would vote for anyone but her? That means that they are more likeley to “hold their noses” over conservative positions that a republican may have just to vote against her.
Why on earth would we choose Rudy when we KNOW he will not, in any way, take actions as a conservative? Have we not learned from Schwarzeneggar and Bush the damage a RHINO can do to the party? It has turned the party of the Contract For America into big spenders, big central government, social liberalism and proponents of International socialistic concepts such as global warming, open borders etc.
The American people have shown a vote of “no confidence” for both the republican and democrat parties. Could it be because the republican party has moved so far to the left that it has left most of us disenfranchised?
I will do everything I can to make sure Rudy is never President.
Misery loves company.
even if you elect hillary?
“What seems like a black and white decision to you, is in fact a complex decision IMO.”
I have read through your response to this as well as other comments on this thread. I understand and respect the depth of your feelings. For now, the decision is complex. It is primary season and you are not yet faced with the reality of Hillary. There are clear alternatives right now for you to not have to settle. It is human nature to look at your opponent (in this case Rudy to name one) and demonize him. Similarly, it is human nature to put the candidate that you support on a pedestal. The right thing for you to focus on is getting a candidate nominated who best expresses your views. I am a New Yorker who is a strong Guiliani supporter. If there is a Hillary vs Rudy match-up, I will be making the strong case for Rudy who in many ways would be far superior to Hillary. I assume that you strongly think this is hogwash. I am fine for that now. However, if that match-up occurs, I would like to engage you in that discussion. It is too premature to make that argument now. Lets see who the nominee is. Perhaps Huckabee will get traction and get the nomination. If so, I will be a strong supporter of his.
For now, I do want to briefly address some of your premises.
1. You have a reasonable take on the evil of Hillary, however, I believe that you underestimate what a threat of her as president will mean to the country. This for me is the number one issue that transcends everything. The contrast of this socialist criminal with almost every opponent will be clearcut. It is why I do not believe that the decision will be complex at all.
2. I understand your contempt for the Republicans who were effectively complicit with letting the Clintons off. However, I do not in any way accept that this makes them worse than the perpetrator of the crime. The Republican’s crime was cowardice as they did not have the votes in the Senate for conviction. In understanding of this cowardice, one needs to be aware of the media’s impact on distorting the truth and their influence on opinion. It is in the media where we need a revolution to get the media to report the truth.
3. As you articulated very well, there is a lot to criticize Bush for. It is true that some of his policies were misguided and seem little different from a Democrat. However, there are significant differences. He is steadfast on the WOT. The rules of engagement in Iraq were a big mistake but he is to admired for his principled strong stand. In fact, there are now successes happening with a new strategy. Contrast with the Democrats. Harry Reid “ The war is lost” quote at the time our troops are in harms range. Perhaps the most traitorous comment of our lifetime based on someone as high up in government. It surpasses Kerry’s speech to the Congress during Vietnam selling out the troops. (By the way would you go back and vote for Kerry over Bush?)It even surpasses the General Petraius Move On quote. (by the way the admonishment signed by Hillary - although she did sign the Limbaugh smear letter.) How about judges. How do you think Roberts and Alioto (after a brief brain lapse with Meirs) compare with who a Democrat would have nominated. Perhaps you might think we would have been better off with that wonderful visionary - Gore.
4. Letting the country deteriorate by having Hillary president will not succeed in having the country getting behind “pure candidates” that will right all of the ills of society. This is a discussion that I would also like to have once the nominees are known. Allowing known corruption to flourish will poison our society for a long time and I feel will do irreparable harm to the US. Make no mistake about it there is a big difference.
Bottom line, I believe the Democrats, in particular their leadership, to be despicable. Their treasonous behavior with a complicit media, their socialist goals, their hatred for America, attack on our judicial system cannot be rewarded under any circumstance. What conservatives should do is try to get their candidates elected thru the nominating process and try to influence policy. More important, try to a have a cohesive strategy for getting the truth out. That would be to change the media.
I look forward to our discussion come the general election time.
PLA=Peoples Liberation Army, The Chinese Military.
Thanks for the detailed response. Yes, those post primary discussions are going to interesting this year, if one of the conservatives doesn’t pull it out.
I just read this: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1914434/posts?page=178#178
It moved me deeply. I agree wholeheartedly with everything said there, except the choice of candidate. Mine is Ron Paul. I’m not a “kook.” I’m a scared citizen who loves his country and is nauseated by where we are headed. As I read that amazing post by an amazing Patriot, I was sure there was a Ron Paul endorsement at the end. There wasn’t, and that’s fine, but I must say it puzzles me.
If I had to guess, I’d say the hostility towards Paul among Freepers is largely based on social values, where Paul is essentially hands-off in favor of the states, as well as a disagreement on the correct solution to the war, which you all know. Well let me tell you, I’m no dope-smoking hippy pacifist. I’ve been a registered Republican since I turned 18 and have voted along party lines in every election — except in local elections with no Republican candidates, when I would write in Ronald Reagan’s name. This is not hyperbole, it is the truth. I voted for President Bush both times, and was a vocal supporter of the war — at first.
I’m supporting Ron Paul this time around. The last few years have transformed me, I feel I’m more conservative than I’ve ever been, because my primary focus has become the Constitution. It is almost surreal to see myself type those words — the Constitution should be every American’s top priority, as every freedom we have starts there. But there it is; our priorities have shifted. It is now considered kooky to endorse the Constitution, especially if it contradicts the current Republican position. Well I’m sorry, but *that* sounds kooky to me. Not just kooky, but *scary*. The kind of scary that makes you revisit history.
Am I completely satisfied with Paul as a candidate? No. I’m uncomfortable with his demeanor at times; he’s not at all polished. But some of our most revered Presidents were not much better. Washington was extremely terse in person, because either his dentures were killing him or he wasn’t wearing them. Jefferson was an awkward public speaker. Yes, Jefferson! Lincoln had a weak, thin voice and did not project well with large audiences. Etc. Yet these men were all eloquent writers and their writing is how we know them. When we read their speeches we envision them being powerfully delivered, but they were not. The point is that appearances are not everything; in an ideal world they would be nothing. If his mannerisms are the basis of your ridicule, you insult many great man of history. I choose to look past the flaws, past the disagreements (such as they are, but few), and vote my conscience. This will be the first time in my life that I do.
Is Paul a radical? Yes and no. Constitutionally, not at all. But when drawn against the backdrop of our current, messed-up society, he sure seems like one. I view this as an asset. Do you actually think he will accomplish half of what he’s calling for? Not a chance, he will be fought tooth and nail. But with a President coming from a position that far “out there,” whatever middle ground is reached will be decidedly less moonbatty.
You may disagree with Paul on the issues, but you may not disagree with his arguments. To do so would be your folly, as all one must do to discredit you is open the Constitution. This is powerful ground to hold, standing in the starkest possible contrast to the communist left. Imagine how exposed they will be, if to oppose the President is to oppose the Constitution. How could they possibly not be disgraced?
Like the writer of that post, I’ve taken a stand. Am I bothered by the name-calling? You betcha. It hurts. The worst ones are those coming from the position I held not long ago. I expect to be attacked from the left, if for no other reason than my desire to keep my own money. But to be thrown under the bus by the right is devastating to me. Have I betrayed them, or is the opposite true? I’ve been called names by strangers, yet when I quiz them on the Constitution they balk. They don’t think Paul is a kook because of his platform, because that is not possible. They say these things because their friends are saying it, the same friends that are going to vote for Guliani just because he’s running as a Republican. If he wins, hide your guns. Mine are in a safe place.
I’m also done following the crowd. The writer and I disagree on our choice of candidate, but we are on the same page in oh so many ways. Thanks for the heartfelt inspiration. I’ll brace myself for the name-calling.
You are absolutely right on. When we sacrifice victory just for a few (albeit good) principles we just set ourselves up for another good screwing by the Klintoon twins.
A belated thanks for the Hunter info, FRiend. I checked out the videos on Hunter’s site a while back where he explains the unfair Chinese rebates — he did a great job with those. I have trouble sorting out various candidates’ trade proposals in my head — markets are so complex that I find it difficult to even guess what the outcome of a given trade action would be. Ugh.
A belated thanks for the links, calcowgirl! I continue to have some differences with Hunter on some small-l libertarian issues (then again, I have differences with every candidate — some more than others cough-Giuliani-cough). But Hunter is such a solid guy — I especially appreciate your inclusion of his Kelo stance. Thanks again!
You’re welcome.
Communist China’s approximately $250 BILLION trade imbalance EACH YEAR gives China a lot of money to build it’s military, and that in itself is enough for me.
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.