SC Rep. Debate

[ShadeHonestus]

Tancredo and Gilmore were cartoonish.

You really found Tancredo cartoonish? He's been hitting Iowa pretty hard lately more so than most candidates and I'd have to say that he translated well to the debate. His ideas about how to handle illegal immigration were nice to see mentioned on a national stage. He was candid, but not cartoonish imo.

Tancredo and others regularly appears on Steve Deace's show, "Days in the Afternoon" on WHO radio Des Moines. www.whoradio.com you can get the live broadcast there. I think you have to register, but its free of course. For those of you in the know, that's the radio station where Ronald Reagen started in broadcasting.

As far as Giuliani goes, he did have a strong night, but it was as opportunity presented itself in the guise of the jester Paul. I think his strongest line of the night (if I remember correctly) was overshadowed and lost in the exchange with the Paul and that was his quoting of Hilary's position on free markets to contrast his conservative credentials.

From the NR link you provided:

I love that Mike Huckabee, Baptist-minister social conservative, emanates “normal” and “likable.”

Huckabee can be engaging. However is it just me or does anyone else think that he probably moonlights as a Kevin Spacey stunt double.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I was actually liking Ron Paul until the "it's our fault" thing.

[Pindar]

I was actually liking Ron Paul until the "it's our fault" thing.

Paul is an isolationist.

[Pindar]

You really found Tancredo cartoonish?

Yes. Being a single issue presidential candidate already moves one in the cartoon direction. Using speech affectations i.e. 'like' and 'you know' in a Presidential Debate lessen the rhetorical gravitas. Not paying attention to the questions or issues does the same. An example of the latter: there was a series of questions that moved along the lines of a terrorist attack scenario. The scenario involved several attacks on shopping malls with one group of terrorists being captured and the thought a larger attack was in the works. The thrust was what techniques would be allowed to get information from the captured. Tancredo couched his response in terms of what he would do after the nuclear attacks (not in the question) and that he would be looking for Jack Bauer to get the job done (suggesting the law is dispensable).

Huckabee can be engaging. However is it just me or does anyone else think that he probably moonlights as a Kevin Spacey stunt double.

Hehe. I can see it, kind of an uglier version of Spacey.

[ShadeHonestus]

The thrust was what techniques would be allowed to get information from the captured. Tancredo couched his response in terms of what he would do after the nuclear attacks (not in the question) and that he would be looking for Jack Bauer to get the job done (suggesting the law is dispensable).

Points taken on Tancredo although I would encourage you to listen to more of his interviews, if you haven't, as he does become more than a one issue candidate, at least to me. Twenty four hours later and my recollection of specifics is less than admirable, but as far as the nuclear attack didn't the question find its way to him after another candidate fielded it in a figurative refocus of "instead of once the bomb has gone off, we should focus on prevention" and therefore wasn't his reference to refocus and say he'd be looking for a metaphorical Jack Bauer? This is not far off from what many of the candidates stated in saying they would take responsibilty for the call on what means would be used to save American lives.

Of course I could be off on my memory so please do correct...

[Pindar]

Points taken on Tancredo although I would encourage you to listen to more of his interviews, if you haven't, as he does become more than a one issue candidate, at least to me. Twenty four hours later and my recollection of specifics is less than admirable, but as far as the nuclear attack didn't the question find its way to him after another candidate fielded it in a figurative refocus of "instead of once the bomb has gone off, we should focus on prevention" and therefore wasn't his reference to refocus and say he'd be looking for a metaphorical Jack Bauer? This is not far off from what many of the candidates stated in saying they would take responsibilty for the call on what means would be used to save American lives.

Of course I could be off on my memory so please do correct...

The scenario was bounced off of several candidates. The focus was the parameters of torture particularly the notion of water-boarding and language parsing torture with some variant of strong arm interrogation (with McCain being the only one who totally rejected such ideas). I don't recall anyone mentioning nukes before Tancredo. I noted it because is seemed to come out of nowhere.

I haven't listened to too many interviews of Tancredo or the others beyond the top three as they don't really seem viable. If I were running the debates I would require from here on out participation requires that a person has at least 5% support in national polls or has raised at least 20% of the money of the top money raiser. This would cut the numbers properly and allow more meaningful debates.

[Spino]

I concur that Giuliani came out the strongest in this debate. I thought McCain did fine but I definitely think his stature and popularity in the GOP has shrunk too much for him to take the nomination. Romney made a damn strong show of it and handled all questions with aplomb but his responses didn't seem as genuine as Giuliani's or McCain's.

On a totally superficial level I finally got a good look at Romney and I realized that from a visual standpoint the man simply screams Presidential alpha male material. Romney's looks, stature, voice and mannerisms puts all other contenders, Republican or Democrat, at a huge disadvantage. Policy wise Romney may come across as a bit of an opportunistic flip flopper but in a field full of flip floppers that puts him on even ground. I daresay Romney has the same sort of looks/charisma factor going for him that put JFK in the White House.

Ron Paul scored points with me on the small government, Founding Fathers stuff until he went bats--t crazy and committed political suicide on stage with his 9/11 remarks. 9/11 is as much a reaction of America's desire to exist and conduct business as it sees fit as it was a reaction to our Middle Eastern foreign policy. Someone needs to tell Ron that the days of being a truly isolationist nation are behind us. Furthermore, why should we surrender our nation's economic & political initiative because some fanatics don't like our culture, our friends or the way we do business?

With the exception of Tancredo who did pretty well I thought the other candidates were rather blah and dull in that it was painfully obvious when they went into pre-rehearsed political robot mode.

If Giuliani or Romney get the nomination the Republicans should easily take the White House in '08.

The thing that struck me about the Republican debate is how much grittier it was than the Democrat one. It felt like a real debate and the answers given were seemingly meatier and more substantial than the ones the Dems gave. I suppose you could chalk it up to less rhetoric and Fox's excellent mediation.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...Someone needs to tell Ron that the days of being a truly isolationist nation are behind us. Furthermore, why should we surrender our nation's economic & political initiative because some fanatics don't like our culture, our friends or the way we do business?

That's the Libertarian party in a nutshell -- pardon the pun -- they come over great on some important subjects like taxes and smaller government and the role of the judiciary and seemingly take a realistic if unpopular stance on others such as drug legalization....and then you scratch the surface a bit and too many of them display a tinfoil hat or the desire to crank back foreign policy to Washington's farewell address -- eminently unpractical. Pity really, they probably represent the closest thing to a true "match" for my political beliefs on their good issues.

The thing that struck me about the Republican debate is how much grittier it was than the Democrat one. It felt like a real debate and the answers given were seemingly meatier and more substantial than the ones the Dems gave. I suppose you could chalk it up to less rhetoric and Fox's excellent mediation.

Stop saying things like that. You're shattering a cherished American Liberal myth that the folks at FOX are not only slanted to the right but incompetent boobs as well.

[Odin]

That's the Libertarian party in a nutshell -- pardon the pun -- they come over great on some important subjects like taxes and smaller government and the role of the judiciary and seemingly take a realistic if unpopular stance on others such as drug legalization....and then you scratch the surface a bit and too many of them display a tinfoil hat or the desire to crank back foreign policy to Washington's farewell address -- eminently unpractical. Pity really, they probably represent the closest thing to a true "match" for my political beliefs on their good issues.

Now now lets not be to nasty, if you hadnt noticed I lean towards libertarians as well.

We'd do well to have a non intervention foriegn policy for a while, let everyone else hammer out there own lots. I do concede that the Libertarian party is rather extreme in its unyeilding views, but they do bring ideas to the table that could be adopted by the other parties.

Hell, if Ross perot could get a balanced budget pushed into the american psychy, anything is possible.

[Xiahou]

The thing that struck me about the Republican debate is how much grittier it was than the Democrat one. It felt like a real debate and the answers given were seemingly meatier and more substantial than the ones the Dems gave. I suppose you could chalk it up to less rhetoric and Fox's excellent mediation.

Bah! Where were the weighty questions- like when Mike Wallace asked Romney if he had pre-marital sex with his wife? These are the important questions.

[CrossLOPER]

The thing that struck me about the Republican debate is how much grittier it was than the Democrat one. It felt like a real debate and the answers given were seemingly meatier and more substantial than the ones the Dems gave. I suppose you could chalk it up to less rhetoric and Fox's excellent mediation.

That's the point, dude. It's all a game. It's also one of the reasons I don't take part in serious political discussions at this level anymore.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

That's the Libertarian party in a nutshell -- pardon the pun -- they come over great on some important subjects like taxes and smaller government and the role of the judiciary and seemingly take a realistic if unpopular stance on others such as drug legalization....and then you scratch the surface a bit and too many of them display a tinfoil hat or the desire to crank back foreign policy to Washington's farewell address -- eminently unpractical. Pity really, they probably represent the closest thing to a true "match" for my political beliefs on their good issues.

Well as a Libertarian let me say a few things. I am at heart an isolationist. I can see where their coming from. But Im afraid in todays shrinking world this is just not a feasible position. These people are the religous right of the Libertarian party. Its whats holding them back on the really important matters that they have the right ideas on. As far as legalizing drugs goes that would be the greatest boon to the US in half a century since these insane drug laws came into being.