Posted on 11/30/2007 10:04:48 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
It was the Republican presidential candidates' turn to take questions from the great unwashed, and they didn't seem to have as much fun as the Democrats did. And it's not just because there was no talking snowman or Jackie Broyles and Dunlap. --snip--
Marc Ambinder (3) graded the candidates, and he proved to be pretty generous. "McCain's mix of resigned sighs, sober mien and sense of humor went over well with a crowd that seemed predisposed to be wary of him. ... Giuliani had a an 'eh' to 'poor' night. He seemed deflated. A little defensive. ... Thompson: He gets more comfortable with every debate. Tonight, he repeatedly matched parts of his resume to the issues at hand, a way of answering the lingering question that he's checked out. It was a very good performance in a state he needs to pump his numbers. His answer on guns was very clear and strong. ... Huckabee held his own and was not really subjected to close scrutiny. A strong answer for his Iowa audience on the bible. Romney had a strong night, seemed raring to go, seemed to be willing to take on everybody, anybody, all comers, seemed to want to pick every fight possible."
But two other bloggers gushed over the former Arkansas governor and the other Man from Hope. "Huck gave clear, thoughtful answers to questions about the death penalty, the Bible and immigration, blogged Jennifer Skalka at Hotline On Call (4). "He also had the funniest line of the night, per the WWJD? death penalty inquiry. 'Jesus Was Too Smart to Ever Run for Public Office, Anderson.'
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
Disagree. The MSM wants Huck simply because they believe he will be the easiest target for Hillary to beat. They want her, and not anyone else to win.
They especially do not want Rudy, even though he is closest to their liberal-leanings philosophically, (not to mention looks better in a dress than Hillary) because when it’s all said and done, Rudy is still a Republican — and is capable of slicing red meat if/when the situation requires it.
Nope. They want to bamboozle the American right into choosing Huck and once having done so, will gleefully start pointing out his weird little idiosyncrasies and quasi-Christian, neo-socialist positions in the hopes of getting Conservatives to stay home on election day.
Just my take...but I don’t think they want Huck at all. I think they want to boost him to pull support away from FRed and McCain, so rootie tootie can keep gaining on all of them. Because, that’s just what’s been happening.
They know he won’t get the nod.
I don’t think there could be any Republican easy to beat.
The only thing that could sabotage Republicans a bit would be if Libertarians and Paul followers voted down a third party black hole or not at all. That is the same a voting Democrat.
What Newsweak article?
That is what they believe, but it is a huge miscalculation on their part. Huckabee would win that race.
“Huckabee would win that race.”
Indeed...
Former Gov. Mike Huckabee holds a five point lead over Democratic U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton in a potential 2008 general election matchup, the largest lead of any potential Republican candidate.
Notably, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani are the two weakest candidates in a general election matchup against Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee.
ZOGBY INTERNATIONAL
November 26, 2007
General election match-ups show the New York
senator would lose against every top Republican
UTICA, New York – A new Zogby Interactive survey shows Democrat Hillary Clinton of New York would lose to every one of the top five Republican presidential contenders, representing a reversal of fortune for the national Democratic front–runner who had led against all prospective GOP opponents earlier this year.
Huckabee 44% +5
Clinton 39
Thompson 44% +4
Clinton 40
McCain 42% +4
Clinton 38
Giuliani 43% +3
Clinton 40
Romney 43% +3
Clinton 40
The online survey included 9,150 likely voters nationwide, and was conducted Nov. 21–26, 2007. It carries a margin of error of +/– 1.0 percentage points.
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1393
I’m sorry, but I say it again: I just don’t think the American Public is ready to elect a Baptist Preacher POTUS; especially one who is already nicknamed “Huck”.
It ain’t happening folks.
Hillary Clinton 51%
Bill Clinton 49%
How do I know? Because he hasn’t been “on top” of Hillary in years.
LLS
“McCain’s mix of resigned sighs, sober mien and sense of humor went over well with a crowd that seemed predisposed to be wary of him. ... Giuliani had a an ‘eh’ to ‘poor’ night. He seemed deflated. A little defensive. ... Thompson: He gets more comfortable with every debate. Tonight, he repeatedly matched parts of his resume to the issues at hand, a way of answering the lingering question that he’s checked out. It was a very good performance in a state he needs to pump his numbers. His answer on guns was very clear and strong. ... Huckabee held his own and was not really subjected to close scrutiny. A strong answer for his Iowa audience on the bible. Romney had a strong night, seemed raring to go, seemed to be willing to take on everybody, anybody, all comers, seemed to want to pick every fight possible.”
*************************
“Hitler’s hair wasn’t parted, his moustache is too small. Moussolini folds his arms too much and acts arrogant. Stalin was calm and composed, although you wouldn’t want to be stuck in a room all alone with him.”
What about their f’ing voting record. Is this an American Idol contest or the presidency?
A wise person taught me that not everything is decided in the latest version of the frontal lobes. We don't usually pick our spouses that way, for example ---- and when we do, we're likely to regret it.
I believe the selection of a president is largely a pre-rational affair as well.
A candidate's name matters (Hussein, Huck, Giuliani) in a way we can't readily get beyond, though we know we should. Likewise their gender and looks and some indefinable "something" that communicates to us, quite without language.
Boys in the schoolyard don't pick their leaders after listening to candidates offering reasons; and they generally do it with confidence, effortlessly.
Then the name Thompson should work very well, huh?
So it really comes down to asking, for the GOP, who best represents overall America right now - is it slick and polished, is it down-home, is it a hardcore conservative, is it military understanding, is it consistent and on-point, is it big money, is it man-on-the-street, etc? That is what the primary process is for.
The downside is that the GOP is currently very hard trying to eat its young; all the opposition dirty-tricks will be picked up by the Rats once the general contest gets underway. Each of the politicians in the race should be able to stand on his own merits, ideas, and record, and let the primary voters decide, not cash-rich mudslinging. A thread yesterday mentioned the need to stand up to CNN and hold another wide-ranging debate; I for one would welcome it to allow some of the candidates to get their message out.
I assume your question is rhetorical. They are just salivating at the chance to have at a real gen-u-wine Bible-thumper. The sad part is, the candidates, Huckabee included, answered these questions straight and didn't see that they were being pimped.
Ethos, pathos, logos.
Ethos. We look first at and judge the total package through the filter of our biases and prejudices, wordlessly, for signals indicating that the person is authoritative in posture and dress, trustworthy, strong, intelligent, and self-confident. Weaknesses at this foundational level carry over into our feelings, judgments, and beliefs at the higher levels.
Pathos. We judge whether the person connects with us at an emotional, gut level. Does he hate and love the same things we do? Does he sound appropriately engaged and passionate over these things? Again, our biases and prejudices carry great sway.
Logos. The actual words spoken and arguments made at the debate. If the candidate has not won us over at the ethos and pathos levels, he will not win us over at this level.
That's a simplified version of the theory, but I've always found it to be helpful.
I believe in Huckabee's case the "surge" is largely due to people who find his Southern Baptist preacher ethos appealing. That is also a great weakness because many people associate that ethos with flim-flammery or find it not well-fitted to the highest position of secular power in the world.
On the other hand, he also puts people at ease at an emotional, gut level with his humor. The question is, does that peculiar pathos match our expectations of the demeanor of a president? Arguably it does not. We want human warmth and some humor in our presidents--Reagan was the ideal--but we want our stand-up comedians in Vegas, not in the Oval Office.
Logos. We never really got much from Huckabee at that level because--frankly--he never really gave any substantive thoughtful answers. He gave us quips and one-liners.
What Huckabee really did was persuade us he's likable. But he offered no nourishment with his cotton candy likability. Over time, voters will realize that--and remember that Huckabee is auditioning for the presidency--and he's going to run out of steam. Compared to Huckabee, Giuliani--for all his faults--will come off the far more credible candidate.
But the timing may be such that Huckabee's likability will last just long enough to cripple the only other candidate with sufficient money and credibility to derail Rudy Giuliani: Mitt Romney.
Huckabee's candidacy is an evangelical political death wish.
It is Romney’s candidacy that is a political death wish.
Romney or Giuliani, two northeastern Yankees with liberal records on abortion and homosexual issues, will put even some southern states at risk against the former first lady of Arkansas. (Notably, the Zogby poll shows them with the smallest leads over Hillary in the general.)
McCain, Thompson, Huckabee — all of them would carry every southern state without question (not counting Florida as “southern” in the same way). Not so for the mayor of (cue the Pace Picante Sauce commercials) “New York City?!” or the governor of the People’s Republic of Massachusetts who puts John Kerry to shame when it comes to Olympic-level gymnastics on core social issues.
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.