Posted on 01/04/2008 8:50:37 PM PST by JasonC
“Right Night: NRO Takes Manchester” will feature our version of the three wise men: the tremendous trio of Jonah Goldberg, Rob Long, and Mark Steyn.
The night will be cosponsored by the good folks at the new Center for the Renewal of New England Politics and Culture at the Granite State’s own Thomas More College.
See You Tomorrow in Manchester [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
If you signed up for the Long-Steyn-Goldberg show, you'll be getting an e-mail tonight. Basically starts at 4:30, runs to a bit after midnight at the Manchester Radisson. Some special guests on site are rumored to include Rich Lowry, Ramesh Ponnuru. Smile a lot if you want to be pulled from the audience for our debate focus group. I'll see you too.
If you've RSVPed, you're in. At this point, we're booked to capacity.
Will this be going on at the same time as the debate? I wish I could go up there for it. I’m only an hour away, but am recovering from being in the hospital over Christmas and having had a heart catheterization, so I’m not moving around too well yet. ;o)
Are these the folks who endorsed Mitt Romney?
Will this be on TV or radio, anywhere?
Here is my trip report on the event. I'll start with my raw "blog" notes made at the time, half of which is just me blogging the debate. I wasn't taking notes for the earlier period with the panelists until later in that session, so those are thinner. I will add more below from bits I recall.
Pre debate event -
Both Jonah and Mark were "on", in fine form. Standing room only, packed. All stay for the show, only about half for the debates, many up and talking early in the Dem debate.
Comic moment early, Mark not having a working mike, getting him one (you have to turn it on) "we don't have these things"
Mark comical riff that he is the authentic north country type, the others effete from DC and Hollywood.
Hollywood - Azerbaijani acupuncturist who likes Ron Paul. Mark Steyn thinks it hysterical, oh come on you have to be making this stuff up...
Question period - Ron Paul nut implying Bush tyrannical over Gitmo, Mark glorious in stomping on him over it - you aren't really scared of Bush, people riding around with bumper stickers about 9-11 as an inside job "if you think the government could have pulled off something like 9-11 and covered it up, would you be left riding around with a bumper sticker about it?". People in real tyrannies, both in the rest of the world and in Europe in living memory, it is an insult to them to devalue the word "tyranny" to pretend George Bush is. The whole thing is infantile and the left should grow up and drop it.
Going through the candidates and their comic potential, love to bash Hillary, Edwards would be a dream, all most afraid of Obama, think the Dems should nominate him. Hillary failing to connect, "knows the words but can't hear the music" of politics, all those years next to Bill, so good at it, learned nothing. Compared to Reese Witherspoon in "Election", and I really must insist that you elect me now.
Jonah has not endorsed anyone, purposefully, but said he could not vote for Huckabee or (comically point) Ron Paul.
Mark Steyn thinks Romney weak up against Obama - never had anything go wrong vs what a story.
Several point out that McCain has a better story (though Steyn curls lips, obviously dislikes McCain).
Very little love for the Huckster in the room. Show of hands, most were for Romney but also sizeable groups for McCain, Thompson (#2 actually), and Rudy. A couple Pauleans, like 3 Duncan Hunter.
Bill Clinton was speaking next door - and had to pause to be heard because of the thunderous laughter coming from our room, KA Lopez informs us as the panel concludes.
Republican debate
First question is trying to frame whole field as hawks.
Wants Huckabee to attack Bush - he backs off instantly and pretends instead that he wanted more troops.
Thompson calls him on it.
Insufferable TV commentator.
McCain says several times that Bush deserves credit over Iraq - while highlighting his disagreement with Rumsfeld
Also thanks Rudy for 9-11, trying to start on high road
So they go right to Ron Paul for rebuttal - the Dems are going to run as Ron Paul
Romney right policies but sounds scattered - helping Muslims become strong enough to reject radical Islam. Rudy - attack didn't take place because of US foreign policy. Trying to score easy points on Paul.
Huckabee - diffuse and scatterblown - his "arrogant and bunker mentality" line to Foreign Affairs biting him hard. (Rush crucified him for it previously, everyone on stage knows it).
This war - "which one?"
It is really helpful if you talk about your ideas and policies and I talk about mine... (Romney to Huckabee)
But Romney did not look sufficiently collected and presidential in the response - Huckabee destroyed, Romney didn't get all the points.
Rudy vs. Paul, Rudy destroys him and looks much more presidential. Struggles with debate format...
Thompson looks the most presidential doing it
McCain looks presidential, avoids muddy fights with the clowns. Does sound a bit slow and old. "A titantic transcendent struggle..." Goes after the Democrats first (score).
Romney appeals to his family. A little bit of principle - family, economy - then goes stump speech.
"Keeping America the strongest nation on earth" - family, values, economy, military... Sounds scripted and loose
Rudy - first to appeal to Reagan as his hero. 12 written commitments to people - (1) stay on offense in the war.
Huckabee gets policy - principle distinction. Goes back to Declaration for principles.
Thompson - goes to constitution instead of declaration. checks and balances, enumerated powers (debt, generations - weak ending, trailing off into stump speech buzzword-dropping)
Huckabee wins this subject - he was channeling Alan Keyes.
Rudy defends health care system as private - great line where will Canadians go for health care.
McCain - need to control health care cost growth - but fails to answer the question with - you are paying for it already. Weak.
Romney - we can get everyone insured in a free market way Huckabee - lame prevention stuff.
after break - immigration
McCain - people have lost confidence in government, we must first control border
Romney - attacks amnesty
Rudy - illegals who have committed crimes
McCain and Romney - McCain really mad over amnesty, looks positively fuming, clearly deeply wounded and bitter over it. Isn't scoring against Romney or defending himself, just comes across as cantankerous.
Romney engages on policy substance (are they sent home...)
Rudy scores some for trying to break it up by invoking Reagan and pointing out he went for amnesty
Thompson scores for repeatedly asking "can you stay in the country?" and then moving to agreement on the border, trumps Rudy's move.
and then hits Rudy claiming New York was a sanctuary city - explains exceptions (for children, health treatment, crime reports)
Immigration round to Thompson - Romney ok but a bit messed by the McCain fracas, everyone else took damage except Thompson.
Huckabee almost said "focus group results" in the middle of the debate. He got as far as "foc" and retreated.
Romney scores by saying everyone agrees on legal immigration being a good thing.
Romney scores by quoting O'Rourke on free health care
McCain says he agrees Romney is the candidate of change. (flips). Both messed by it, delivered as venom, not funny.
McCain scores by calling Obama on foreign policy weakness, unreality about foreign challenges.
Rudy says - no executive experience, and gets specific about the changes he is for that are bad, notably timetable for retreat. But a weak charge compared to the previous.
Huckabee - policy laundry list - then dislikes left-right, has excited people. Huckabee wants to surf Obama popularity not attack it. Unlikely to impress primary voters worried about Obama.
weirdest left field oil price permanent question...
Thompson - scores by a deadpan "no" to windfall profits tax idea. He is running against the annoying liberal press and it works.
Democratic debate -
First question designed to let the Dems immunize themselves against any and all charges of foreign policy weakness.
Obama gives a fine strong answer on the first "hawk" question. Gets a follow on softball isn't that Bush-like, swats it away
Edwards - if we know where Bin Laden is, take him out. Oh and by the way, in the long run, rid the world of nuclear weapons.
I was in the coffee line at the time, a pleasant older woman was rolling her eyes at Edwards' comments. "Yeah, and also get rid of anyone who knows physics" I told her, and she laughed.
Richardson says use diplomacy first, calls on Mushie to step aside. (!) Just insane.
Hillary - we tried it, it didn't work. (five things we should be looking at - even your life and death is a policy memo)
more NATO troops in Afghanistan and faster training of Afghan army (he isn't there, ma'am).
Pakistani government needs to know they are on the way - (because that helped so much last time, when the missiles missed - ISI leaks like a sieve) lest we inflame India-Pakistan. Clearly repeating a past administration internal roundtable point, without regard for present context or the consequences the first time.
nukes currently secure... then corrects herself on Mushie (she listens to Rush!)
Overall gassy, all over the map
repair failed policies of the Bush adminstration (yawn refrain)
Richardson thinks Iran problems stem from support for Shah, and that the solution is to undermine leaders like them. Richardson is channeling Jimmy Carter, same line about human rights etc. (Hey Bill, they'd say we supported Mushie if you dropped him next year, too, just like they did the Shah. And look how well that turned out).
Obama attacks Bush for war of choice, calls Iraq a distraction etc. Dem talking points but well delivered and looks remarkably sane compared to Richardson.
--- nuclear attack on US city question (30%, some say 50%)
Edwards - remain calm. Don't make a dangerous situation worse than it already is with rhetoric
Obama - obviously we have to retaliate. Rebuild nuclear non-proliferation treaty, make agreements with Russians "lock down loose nuclear weapons" (running around Russia?)
Hillary - actually answers the what we wish we had done part of the question. More border security and detectors. Stateless terrorists will operate from somewhere, there is no safe haven. We will retaliate harboring states.
Deterrence worked in cold war.
No follow up questions (Iran does it now...)
Richardson still thinks it is about working diplomatically with the "Soviet Union". He actually said "Soviet Union". Then talks about greenhouse gas emissions (...) - running against George Bush
The democrats are running for president on the TV show "24"
As the panelists pointed out later, none of them asked anything or posited anything about who done it, or where, or how we'd know where to retaliate, or whether and where we'd retaliate if we did not know, etc. They want to sound like a TV script president but haven't actually thought the first thing about the problem. A script writer will handle that, they just need to react with the approved pose and say "yes, nuking Americans will not be tolerate".
softball about "change"
Obama - raise the cap on payroll tax of social security - as an example of being specific
Hillary - very lame attack on Obama for not being coercive enough on health care
Says Obama - voted for Patriot act, voted funding for Iraq war - silly charges
Edwards - rips Hillary to shreds for attacking Obama, insinuates Hillary is the status quo.
Hillary - sounds shrill responding (it is hard work). "look at the changes I've already made"
Richardson - I've been in hostage negotiations that were more civil. "Is experience a leper" "I love change" (whole room laughs at the last, uncomfortably. Pathetic and painful).
Obama winning going away, as Edwards messes Hillary up for him and all he has to do is defend soberly and stand there. Richardson makes him look presidential just for not being insane.
Edwards - drug, oil companies, I've been fighting these corporations for... and there are also some good corporations...
have to be willing to attack entrenched special interests
Obama - enlist the American people in the process of governance, people feel the government isn't listening to them.
the surge is working question
any of you ready to say that the surge has worked. (no)
it is time to bring our troops home, 23 dead in a month is totally unacceptable when the Iraqi government isn't doing anything for political solution
Hillary pledges she will withdraw troops within 60 days.
Richardson, the policy is a massive failure, no military solution.
Obama tries to take credit for the surge, Sunni political shift, saying it was because they were scared by the Dems that the Americans would be leaving. (Idiotic but the most inventive line taken)
Edwards - I'd listen to uniformed military, but presidents set policy, wouldn't take advice from military to stay, even if they say best to stay. "The only way to end the war is to end the occupation".
Richardson thinks the UN can ... Soldiers coming back with mental anguish (oh no!)
Hillary says we have to be ready for the consequences (Iraqis that sided with us) ! Are we going to leave them?
Meaning, she knows the country would be left to enemies, such that those who worked with us will not be safe if they remain in Iraq. Right concern, except it shows she is willing to abandon the country to an enemy.
Hillary - I embody change (having the first woman president is change) incredibly weak
Obama scores by saying he was watching football and the Redskins lost...
doesn't engage on specific Republican attacks on him, gives a stump speech - lobbyists, special interests tracking in a database (huh?) went weak
that is what they will do to any democrat - speaks over the heads of the Republican candidates to their voters. Scores with that, recovers from the previous wonk-gaff.
Scores by attacking things left undone by Clinton presidency
Richardson gets softball on experience and toots his own horn successfully. Loses it later, taking credit for making air conditioners 30% more efficient.
Scores a little by calling JFK his hero. (Later the only one brave enough to be self-deprecating when invited to take back a line from a previous debate).
Edwards clowning. Haven't taken a dime from corporate PACs. Talks about mill worker background and sharecroppers. "This battle is deep inside me, and it is personal".
What did you accomplish in your 6 years in the senate? (patients bill of rights) Liver transplant patient died... when I see corporate lobbyists taking the members of congress to cocktail parties, I see my mill worker parents.
Obama trumps stranger liver transplant patient with his mother dying of cancer filling out insurance forms (lol)
Dem presidency has gone day-time talk show...
Hillary Can we have a reality-break for a minute? Obama's chair is a lobbyist for the drug companies, patient bill of rights failed in the house and the president killed it.
Words are not action, no matter how beautifully presented. Translating feeling into action.
Home run for Hillary.
(no mention of Clinton getting tens of millions for speaking engagements. She was wide open for rebuttal but neither Obama or Edwards had the presence to use it, they were wounded and stunned).
God love all of you ... Press positively gushing, beyond embarassing, whole room laughing uncomfortably.
Edwards - "literally stealing our children's future" - class war hate, you can't take their money... when of course he wants to take their money, just all of it instead of small pieces.
Obama scores by saying it takes a coalition and words make coalitions by inspiring people. I want to tell them yes we can.
Edwards wants to unite the people and politicians, against just the money bags (lol). A big bipartisan consensus to eviscerate our class enemies and devour them raw.
Richardson - cap and trade rather than carbon tax
Obama - agrees
That order has Richardson being a wonk staffer and Obama an approving executive - Obama does not descend into wonk trenches.
Hillary brings up recession and higher costs.
The republicans aren't talking about what we are talking about (who asked the questions?)
Post debate analysis
Hillary as "agent of Change", like it is some covert organization, Smersh, repelling in to reform health care then being evac'ed by helicopter - Steyn
Change stands for ? Corporate Haters And New Government Expenditures. A collective brilliancy in real time.
Re-elect Change!
Omaba 37, Hillary 27, recent poll.
"I already miss her" - (of Hillary)
Panel consensus is that it is Obama going away, Hillary is done for.
Jonah has notes, runs through them quickly. Richardson - mostly terrorists have gotten hold of nuclear warheads
"and then I just wrote "change" for like seven pages"
Kim Jong Il liked Edwards...
best debate yet, but a low bar to hurdle, rather like
The best Octokberfest in Orlando
Most popular rabbi in Iraq
Best gay bar in Riyad
Romney's pockets are full of change... (Jonah)
Steyn thought Thompson won the Republican debate, and he is probably right. Many in the room thought Romney did fine, but those who said so were largely prior Romney supporters.
Panelists had been of with focus groups during the debate, reported that the Dems who dislike Hillary really, really dislike her. Report a Dem woman saying "I agree with everything she says, but I don't like it!" (in a huff). Shrug shoulders, nothing you can do when it is that visceral.
Jonah pointed out that Edwards' claim during the Dem debate that Teddy Roosevelt did not work with the big trusts but only fought them, is false. Says his book covers it - the big companies were participants in the regulatory schemes. Mentioned the Upton Sinclair "Jungle" issues about sanitation in packing plants specifically. Panel joked about "big meat".
Every coffee shop in downtown Manchester is closed for the day before 6 PM. Bars open everywhere - the town and politicos drink, they don't "buzz." Hotel lobby clerk laments that coffee isn't like Washington, where he is from. Knows where the few places are but they all close early.
Bill Clinton apparently doing an event next door close in time to the panel, overlapping us. (Like 3 young women wander in from that event, raise their hands when Hillary supporters are "polled"). We are in one modest sized ballroom. Panelists in 3 easy chairs on a low dais, camera behind rows of side-chairs to seat maybe 150. Back of the room is catering, appetizers. Few open seats and most of those saved, large crowd lining the standing first third or so of the room shy of the chairs.
Few computers, other than one talking to the camera. I am the only one using an outlet for power. Mixed age crowd, numerous young people, mixed casual and nicer dress. Hotel staff aka servers occasionally loud but clear out by the time event starts. Line for a cash bar, doing some glasses of wine and running through bottled water very fast, don't have enough to have any cold by the time I get there.
Happy and upbeat crowd. Panelists well known and well liked, get easy laughs and their wit is continual, far too fast for me to do it justice with the meager comments above. Despite the assessment that the Dems will put up Obama and Obama will be hard to beat, everyone is clearly enjoying themselves, the events, the spectacle.
Questions from the audience to talk about a specific candidate come out as "make fun of Edwards". Jonah goes on about how delicious it will be to see Hillary lose, because it will be the Dem party itself finally saying it is fed up with the Clintons and doesn't want any more of them. He hit Clinton fatigue about 1994 and moved on to Clinton Epstein Barr by the later 90s... (lol)
Steyn jokes about Canada incessantly, like breathing. Tells a story about being told it would take 4 weeks to schedule an EKG. Is introduced as "the Salman Rushdie of Canada", over the comical panels persecuting him for his book. He graciously signs my copy during an ad break in the debates, "let's win!"
When Jonah relates that he wrote a single paragraph about Omaba in the Corner since the first panel session (at the final one), and that he is already being called a racist all over the liberal blogs as a result, his co-panelist explains "well they have that in a macro" - elaborate button-push gesture.
That’s a copout to say that the magazine endorsed Romney, but the panelists did not. Who are the editors? Someone made the decision to endorse Romney, and they published it.
Do they gather all the columnists and editors together to vote? Do the editors vote by themselves? I wish they would say, or maybe they have already.
I really don't understand the objection. Do you think the magazine shouldn't have an official line, or that all its varied pundits should be expected to agree on it, or what? It is entirely natural that each one of them has their own views, whatever their employer thinks.
I’m not sure why it irks me so much that NRO endorsed a candidate. I know that various contributors to NRO have expressed their own preferences. I’m particularly curious, however, about who made the endorsement. Why the need to make an endorsement at all?
BTW, thanks for posting your recap of yesterday’s events. :)
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.