So, last night I watched the Republican debates. I do wish they'd stop calling these extended press conferences "debates;" they do anything but debate. They're asked questions by a couple of moderators, given a few seconds to answer, and then -*bam!*- on to the next question. How can it be a debate when the candidates aren't allowed to challenge each other? As much as it pains me to credit the French with anything, they have genuine debates.
And the questions - oy gevalt! While some were serious, there were ridiculously frivolous ones, too. I mean, asking Mitt Romney what he dislikes most about America? Asking all the candidates --Republicans one and all!-- if they thought it would be a bad thing if Bill Clinton were returned to the White House in a Hillary win? Granted, some of these questions came from visitors to Politico.com, but couldn't the moderators have shown the good sense to delete them?
So, who do I think won? Easy: Fred Thompson. He was the one smart enough not to be there and thus looked good by comparison.
What about the others? The three leaders going in were Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. I've said before I could be happy voting for any of these three. My preferred candidate is Giuliani, and he did OK, not great. Perhaps it's my familiarity with his positions, but I was bored whenever he brought up his talking points (And, like all of them, he did that a lot). He stumbled over abortion, but did get in that word near and dear to my heart: federalism. He got better as the night went on; my endorsement of him hasn't changed.
Romney I think did himself the most good. in spite of his lousy taste in literature. He's telegenic and a polished speaker -- perhaps too polished. I was having trouble getting past the feeling I was being sold something. Still, he said the right things and looked good doing it. I think he should see a bump in the polls.
I confess, I have a love-hate relationship with John McCain. He says almost all the right things about the war and fiscal responsibility, and I think to myself, "Yeah, I could vote for this guy." Then he claims to support strict constructionist judges and takes some credit for getting Alito and Roberts onto the Supreme Court, and I want to throw something at the TV. This is the same man who headed the "Gang of 14" compromise that saw several excellent judge nominees thrown under the bus in the name of "comity" and preserved the unconstitutional filibuster of presidential appointments. He's also co-author of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which restricts political speech and is a gross violation of the 1st Amendment. I could still vote for him, but it would be with strong reservations and while holding my nose.
Of the remainder, only Gilmore and Huckabee impressed me enough to want to learn more about them. (Of course, Gilmore seems to have no official web site ... doh!) Ron Paul I think is the spiritual heir to the anti-Federalists. I sympathized with a couple of his statements, but his isolationist and extreme libertarian views disqualify him in my book.
Duncan Hunter has no shot at President, but he might make a good Secretary of Defense. On the other hand, Tom Tancredo was just strange. While I like Tommy Thompson, I think he lacks the presence to beat either Clinton or Obama on the general election. Also, his ideas on Iraq told me he really hadn't thought about the issue: he wants to make Iraq provinces into the equivalent of US states, with Baghdad as a "federal city," and he seems to be ignorant of the fact that Iraq is about to pass an historic oil law. On this, he's at least not as bad as Sam Brownback, who, while otherwise appearing credible, has bought into Joe Biden's weird plan to carve Iraq into three provinces joined in a loose confederation. Uh, hello? Sam? Tommy? Iraq is now a sovereign government, having held three major elections and written their own constitution. Isn't it just a wee bit arrogant for candidates for President to speculate about ordering an ally to rearrange their nation on our say-so? Talk about imperialist!
So, that was that. Let me make a suggestion to the candidates and the networks: don't hold any more debates until we're down to 2-3 major candidates, and then let them really debate!
LINKS: Pajamas Media has a roundup of blog opinion, while Captain Ed thinks Romney won.
Addendum: I don't know how I forgot this, but scratch what I said about Tommy Thompson not having the charisma to win. It's not that: he doesn't have the political sense got gave an ant. First he insults a national Jewish organization, then, at tonight's "debate," he says it's OK for private employers to fire workers because they're gay! My jaw just dropped when he said that. I don't believe for a moment that he's an anti-semite or a homophobe, but he's damned stupid politically, not ready for the big stage at all.
Buh-bye, Tommy.
Recent Comments