What did you get out of it?
My immediate thought on that — not much.
Maybe it’s an expectations game. I had expected little from the Democratic "debate" — events like that get pretty pointless with more than two or three candidates, and there were eight. But I was pleasantly surprised that I was actually able to gain some information. Not a lot, but the expectation had been so low.
But this was more like what I expected with the other one. Maybe it was that 10 is that much worse than 8. Maybe it was that Fox allowed cheering and jeering from the audience, which NBC did not (and I thought that helped a great deal).
But here’s what I think it was: I knew who most of the Democratic candidates were, so I didn’t have to struggle to follow it. The only unknown to me was Gravel, and he was so crazy he was at least entertaining.
With this one, I did not know who was speaking half the time. I am not exaggerating, and I’m not the only one. Rick Quinn said he watched the first half of it at his office, and everybody kept saying "Who’s that … who’s that?" And that was with an audience, as he pointed out, of people who make their living in politics — and Republican politics at that. So I felt better.
Sure, I knew a little bit about Huckabee and Brownback. But their faces are not recognizable to me. Not yet, and I doubt they will be, because I doubt either will be in it for all that long. Same with Tommy Thompson, and he actually is somebody. As for Tancredo, Hunter, Gilmore — who are they kidding? Ron Paul, who showed up at the wrong party’s debate, was the designated nutball, but unfortunately not nearly as amusing as the Democrats’ nutball.
That leaves three men who had any business being there, and I have my doubts about one or two of them.
As for the other seven — why in the world did Fox not keep their names up on the screen all of the time? It would have helped a great deal.
Related Posts
My break down:
Giuliani – a trip to the dentist is of national security interest in his eyes. If elected, we’ll get 4 more years of tying everyting in with 911.
McCain – the Al Gore of 2008. He’s a good man who’s trapped in political quicksand. I feel he has lost his way.
Romney – snake oil salesman. I was happy to see McCain call him out on his massive flip flops.
Colorado guy – mean bastage. He said he’d go after mayors and city councilmen for not upholding immigration laws. He and the San Diego military committee guy want to build a moat around the US and shoot anyone who wanders too close to our border.
Several cited the NJ Muslim terrorist wannabees as an example of how unsafe our world is. What happened to fighting terrorists over in the Middle East so they won’t follow us home? This is one example of how this macho sabre rattling is a facade and a diversion to addressing complicated world issues in more depth than “you’re with us or against us”.
I can see why the GOP faithful are not very excited by their options.
I’ll be very interested in who will be the first to abandon the SSDubya and his “War” of choice. This will happen when either the Iraqi parliament spends a month vacationing in Crawford, Texas or when the September evaluation reveals the SC DOT has shown more progress than the escalation (aka surge).
Designated nutball? Ron Paul has had the wisdom to oppose the war in Iraq from the very beginning, and has the great majority of the American people on his side of the issue now.
The wrong party’s debate? Ron Paul’s pro-smaller-government, pro-Constitution, pro-life, and anti-illegal-immigration, with 9 Congressional terms of rock solid consistency, is far better than most of the other Republican contenders’.
Ron Paul was questioning the gov’t, its mammouth sized growth lately, and its unreported foreign policy that DOES put us at risk.
We MUST question our gov’t, its our duty as Americans!
What the hell are we doing sending trillions over there over the years and they say we could get nuked, but our borders arent protected and no nuke devices to filter cargo? Whats going on? Why if we had the CIA FBI National Security, and on and on, with the right Intel, did we not save ppl for 9/11? Bureaucracy! And they add another beast in Homeland Security. Even more..
I always wondered, did they attack Freedom, how? And was Democracy under attack? It never made sense.
Why arent they attacking Switzerland or New Zealand Ron asked. How could cavedwellers strike down freedom/democracy?
These are important questions and we must be open to the fact that our foreign policies unbenownst to many of us, breed contempt and help inspire people too…and that Globalists like maybe Guiliani I would categorize are selling the USA out in some ways.
Its important to ask such questions.
Its American.
OK, I’ll state the obvious: He is a natural candidate for the Libertarian Party, and that is what he was and should be again. He and about six others had no business being there.
Ron Paul did the best job and made the most sense. No wonder the GOP is trying to dis him.
How can you say that Ron Paul should have been at the Democrat debate, when Guliani is the closest to the Democrat party line?
Ron Paul spoke the truth, which is far more than most of the other candidates did.
He has my vote in the SC Primary.
The establishment is upset that someone (Ron Paul) dares to speak the truth.
Keep it up, Dr. Paul. The neoCONS have been conning us too long.
There are too many people who let blind nationalism get in the way of the truth.
“Colorado guy – mean bastage. He said he’d go after mayors and city councilmen for not upholding immigration laws. He and the San Diego military committee guy want to build a moat around the US and shoot anyone who wanders too close to our border.”
I have no use for Tancredo and would never vote for him, not even for dogcatcher.
However, we do need to uphold and enforce our immigration laws, period! I would be the first one to double, triple, quadruple, whatever our legal immigration quota. We need legal immigrants. They are a large part of what makes America special, and they are a huge part of the continuing growth of our economy. However, we, the American People, need to decide who gets to immigrate! Not someone who simply decides that, laws be damned, he/she is entitled to live here for whatever reason.
At the same time I would come down like a ton of bricks on illegal invaders. Nobody, but nobody, has a right to simply invade our country against our wishes. I know people who have spent 5 years and over $10,000 trying to immigrate, with no end in sight. They have been trying the legal way – if they had simply swum across the Rio Grande or crossed from Canada into North Dakota, they would probably be in much better shape right now.
This can’t possibly be right! Do we want people who follow our laws or do we want “immigrants” whose first action entering our country is to violate our laws? We need to encourage and vastly increase legal immigration while doing everything in our power to stop the illegal variety. No ands, ifs or buts.
Ron Paul won’t be around for the SC GOP primary. Rightfully so – the guy’s a buffoon!
I didn’t watch the debate, but there is one Republican candidate that I happen to like: Mike Huckabee. I hope that by some miracle he can win the Republican nomination. Whoever wins will be better than what we’ve got now-that’s the good news. Brighter days are ahead for the US.
LexWolf – i think you should be the first in line when they enable conscription.
No clear winner but a definite clear loser, McCain. That worn out drunken sailor joke fell totally flat. His last man standing comment on the war in Iraq just made him look stubborn and foolish. He had a tired, defeated look about him. McCain is a shell of what he was in 2000.
The whole cheering and jeering stuff was really uncalled for. Fox really does not have a handle on how to do these events.
One thing any of you that feel Ron Paul is some kind of nut job can do is fact check what he said in both debates… Do that and you may begin to suspend that inability to disbelieve? If he does not become our next president then we have failed as Americans and our country is our forfeit! Support him with more than your words as I have and send in what ever you can and then some because we dare not fail in this fight to keep our freedom.
Brad says Ron Paul shouldn’t be in the Republican debate yet doesn’t explain why. This coming from the guy who decries “partisanship”. Huh? Like I said in another post, I wish Paul was 67 and not 77 years old. He spoke intelligently and with conviction… something the “Big Three” cannot do.
For what it’s worth, Fox News tried to paint Paul as a loon as well after the debate but looked very foolish as Paul ended up winning the text message poll over who “won” the debate.
If two jets had not hit the Twin Towers, would Rudy Guiliani EVER be considered a candidate for President? He’s going to milk that tragedy for whatever personal gain he can make of it. He’ll never be President when people start learning more about him and his past. It was interesting to watch the post-debate coverage on Fox. Their bias toward Rudy was obvious. Unfortunately, the American public is loaded with suckers who can be spoonfed propaganda.
And no comment from Brad on McCain’s Confederate flag answer (essentially “the people have spoken, let’s move on”)? I would think for what you claim to be such an important issue, you’d be the first one to reject his candidacy. But then you’d be losing your strongest ally in being “the last man standing (10,000 miles away) in the war against terror”.
What a crew! If any of them (except Ron Paul) is representative of today’s Republican Party the elephants are in mourning. If I want to elect the national hater, fear monger, unreality based commander in chief I will vote the people that were on the stage last night. At least the Democratic candidates are able to have multiple coherent thoughts and have viable ideas as too how to begin to extract the country from the mess Bush and his gang that can not shot straight have put us in.
I also had a tough time telling the candidates apart. Didn’t the Dems’ debate have name plates or chirons showing who the candidates were? I seem to recall that they did. I wonder why Fox didn’t do that?
I thought Ron Paul’s answer to the question (paraphrasing): “Congressman Paul, given that 77% of Republicans oppose a timetable for withdrawal from a Iraq and you support this aren’t you in the wrong party’s debate?” was a classic. He said essentially that “the 77% was based on a much smaller Republican party than was the case a few years ago. But the vast majority of ALL Americans support a timetable. Whoever is president must serve ALL Americans, not just the Republican Party.”
Brad, you really should admire Ron Paul. He rejected the partisan party line on many issues, especially Iraq. Isn’t that what you want to see in a candidate? All of the other 9 candidates were unabashed, boot-licking partisan hacks, especially on the Iraq issue.
bud, figure it out: I believe it’s right for us to be in Iraq. I also believe that even if it had been wrong to go in in 2003, we would have no choice but to keep going now — adapting, shifting tactics, reacting to the situation, but never, ever reducing our resources in-theater until things are a lot better than they are now.
I believe anyone who believes that — regardless of party — is right. I believe anybody who disagrees with that — regardless of party — is wrong.
Why on Earth would I admire Ron Paul? You’ve read my blog, right? I disagree with almost everything he says about any issue. If there is anybody that I am going to disagree with almost all the time, it’s a Libertarian. In fact, it’s so rare that I would agree with libertarians about anything that I did a post recently to take note of just such an anomaly.
I admire people who defy their parties to do RIGHT things, not WRONG things. Defy your party when it wants to sanction torture. Defy your party when it wants total gridlock in the appointment of federal judges. Defy your party when it won’t do anything about global warming. And yes, most certainly defy your party when it is moving toward abandoning Iraq, a move that would be disastrous for this nation’s interests, now and for at least a generation to come.
The only defensible purpose in being nonpartisan or bipartisan is to have a free conscience to do what’s right, NOT to pursue a whacko agenda that no major party could endorse.
Actually, Doug, I was considering a post on the flag question, but I haven’t gotten to it. Here’s the essence of what I would say:
John McCain is wrong about one thing: the Confederate flag. Giuliani has the right answer: it’s a South Carolina matter.
McCain’s problem is that he actually wrestled with the issue, and it was an issue he did not and probably never will understand. He shouldn’t have wrestled with it. It’s none of his business.
I don’t mean that in a “go away and shut up, John” sense. I mean it simply has nothing to do with being president of the United States. Having an answer on that is not a qualification, and whatever opinion he might have should have no impact on what SC does on the flag, or on whether he should be nominated and elected.
On issues that do have a bearing as to whether he should be president, I find him to be far and away the best — among either party’s candidates.
Oh, and Doug, if not for 9/11, Rudy probably wouldn’t be politically viable. But he would still be a respectable candidate. I’ve respected the guy since before he was mayor.
McCain and he are the two most substantial and viable GOP candidates. Romney strikes me as an empty suit, and the others have no practical chance of catching fire.
It would have been interesting to have Newt Gingrich there — a lot more interesting than Tancredo, Gilmore, Hunter, et al.
Re: Newt
Yes, that’s what the Republican party needs – another candidate who dumped his wife for a younger woman he was committing adultery with… at least McCain only did it once. That makes him a paragon of virtue compared to Newt and Rudy who are each on wife #3. And Rudy apparently has no contact with his grown children. Classy guy.
But he’s right on Iraq. And was in the right place at the right time on 9/11. That’s all that matters.
Following up on a point made by Ron Paul, why doesn’t the U.S. Congress declare war any more? Are there legal reasons why we now choose police actions over actually declaring war?
Brad,
I think you could appreciate Huckabee’s practical tax philosophy. He supports tax reform, not just for the heck of it, but to ease the tax burden on families. He demonstrated leadership when he defended his record as governor of Arkansas, specifically, a gasoline tax that paid for building roads and an increase in funding for education. He recognizes that, while government ought to be limited in size and scope, it ought to be effective in those areas for which it is in fact responsible.
Is Ron Paul really the nutcase Brad and Fox News make him out to be? Could there be some substance to his claim that U.S. meddling in middle-east policy was a factor in the 9-11 attacks? Not that 9-11 can be excussed, but given our history of meddling it at least puts the attacks in a little different perspective. The idea that we were attacked on 9-11 because radical muslims were jealous of our financial success seems like a much more radical idea than the comments made by Mr. Paul.
The only problem, Brad, in your “defy your party to do the right thing” is that pretty soon there will not be a major political party left to defy when it comes to Iraq…as the parade of Republicans up to the White House to warn Bush makes abundantly clear.
Rudy the prosecutor pre-mayoralty was an interesting guy and he seemed like enough of an SOB to handle being mayor of NYC. So even I voted for him in 93 to replace the ineffective David Dinkins. And for a while, he seemed good in the job. But his bullying tactics and general all-round jerkiness (I mean, come on, how can you not listen to him for 5 seconds without thinking, this guy is a first-class jerk) wore thin. He had become a joke in NYC pre 9/11. Some will say NYC needed a kind of imperial leader at that moment, and that’s Rudy for sure. Now it appears there may have been a cost for some of his decision-making in the days immediately following 9/11. In any case, if you want a leader who can build by consensus internationally and domestically, who can work with the Congress, who would not seek to overreach in expanding executive powers, and who we needn’t fear invoking marshal law, and massively suspending civil liberties with the next terrorist attack, you most definitely do NOT want Giuliani to be President.
Brad, I’m with you on McCain as far as the Republicans are concerned. I wouldn’t fear for my country with him as President the way I would with anybody else on that stage as President. I can’t believe the Republicans cannot come up with a stronger candidate in this “open election” year. Gingrich would be a welcome addition, say what you will, he is primarily about ideas and they seem to be in short supply this election season.
Brad, I know this is something you will never understand. But it is 100% the truth. Anybody who advocates increasing our military involvement in Iraq, as McCain does, cannot be considered a viable candidate for president. That may be the policy you support. And even if it’s the correct policy it is simply not something that is politically viable.
Brad,
I’m struck by your post above re: McCain and the flag
“McCain’s problem is that he actually wrestled with the issue, and it was an issue he did not and probably never will understand. He shouldn’t have wrestled with it. It’s none of his business.”
I find it puzzling that you would use Steve Spurrier’s uninvited opinion on the flag as the impetus for a barrage of editorials but then give the presidential candidates a pass on the issue.
Part of the point of primary politics is for voters to obtain a close look at the candidates and have them take positions on local issues. It is a very useful way to measure them, regardless of whether the issue will ever come to them for a decision. Some of the national issues will likely never come to them for a decision either-for example, if the next president doesn’t appoint a Supreme Court justice, it’s unlikely his or her opinion on abortion will have any impact.
You expect a president to have the wherewithal and decisiveness to respond to another 9/11 attack but don’t feel they can be bothered to be decisive about one of the most controversial issues in SC. Every candidate should have a specific opinion (not just “it’s a state matter”). McCain’s courage faltered in 2000 on this issue. Unfortunately, it appears to be failing him again; I doubt he personally believes that the flag should be anywhere on the State House grounds given how much this issue pricked his conscience 8 years ago. But he’s playing it safe in 2008, one of the reasons he’s a less attractive candidate this time around.
Your willingness to accept McCain’s timidity about the flag makes me question your ability to view him objectively.
I would only add this to Dr. DeMarco’s comment. McCain just does not seem physically or mentally up to the job. He is after all 70 years old. And it shows. Perhaps that explains the safe approach on the flag issue.
Paul,
I think the ovation McCain got on his flag stance was exactly why he has chosen to suppress his true feelings. Gotta trade a little bit of personal integrity for a few more votes in the primary. If he wins the primary, he can then “refine” his position on the flag to get some crossover votes in the general election. Just like Rudy on abortion, they play the game… and hope the electorate is dumb enough to play along.
Paul, et al: Check out my next post. It will be up within a few minutes.
The winners were Huckabee and Hunter. They helped themselves the most. Watch for Huckabee to start picking up momentum.
Tancredo helped himself a little. Romney, Gulliani and Brownback had mixed performances, but probably held even.
Losers were McCain, Paul and Gilmore– watch for them to begin to slide in polls and fundraising.
Overall, it was a very discouraging evening for the Republican party.
The big loser was the image and economy of South Carolina, when the crowd cheered McCain’s answer about the flag.
As an aside, the two NBC debates were far superior. Fox News is second tier.
Ron Paul doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in Hades as a presidential candidate, but at least he has the intellectual honesty to recognize that in any conflict there are two sides.
A common saying in military intelligence goes: The enemy gets a vote, too. Ron Paul merely stated what should be evident to any one who aspires to be president. An understanding and appreciation (not necessarily agreement) with the enemy’s goals and rationalizations is key to devising strategies for any kind of victory or negotiated settlement.
Giuliani’s response that he’s never heard such rationality for the attacks on 9/11 leads me to conclude one of two things. Either he was just seizing the debate moment to pander to the audience, or he’s never made any effort to read or listen to our enemy’s transformational political goals.
In the first case, he’s just another cheesy politician who will say or do anything to get elected. In the second, he’s too ignorant to lead my country. In both cases, he’s lost whatever chance he ever had for my vote.
The Republican Party is in sad, sad shape.
I was intrigued to see all the love for Ron Paul from some of the comments above, and since I didn’t see the whole debate, I only just now saw the clip of the exchange with Rudy.
Ron Paul was not exactly right when he said 9/11 happened because of our actions in Iraq over the 10 years prior; of course, his oversimplification is no more egregious than the Administration’s “Apply Directly to The Forehead, Apply Directly to the Forehead”-like ad campaign: “They hate our freedom.” (Thinking Americans realize it’s just a wee bit more complicated than that. Anyway, maybe they do but so do Alberto Gonzales and John Yoo…they’re just way more subtle).
I’ve just been reading the transcript, and Ron Paul’s explanation for 9/11 notwithstanding, what was stunning to me was just how 100% truthful and absolutely cutting to the core of the matter many of Paul’s other statements were:
“In 2002, I offered an amendment to International Relations to declare war, up or down… and my argument there was, if we want to go to war, and if we should go to war, the Congress should declare it. We don’t go to war like we did in Vietnam and Korea, because the wars never end. And I argued the case and made the point that it would be a quagmire if we go in.”
“the people who attacked us…are delighted that we’re over there.” (As I’ve pointed out to Brad numerous times, the only thing more advantageous from Al-Qaeda’s perspective than our leaving Iraq is our being there in the first place, or even better for them, staying there!)
“I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem….I mean, what would we think if we were — if other foreign countries were doing that to us?”
Oops, somebody better tell Ron Paul that in the Wilsonian approach to geopolitics, thinking about what might be in the minds of other peoples in the world, considering that other people in the world have their own aspirations that do not necessarily coincide at all times with the national interests of the United States and should be at least taken into account, well, that’s heresy.
“It is the advice of the Founders to follow a non-interventionist foreign policy…” We have spent our country’s lifetime trying to tweak things so that we are more truly living up to the creed of “all men are created equal” and “we the people”. Why, oh why then, are we drifting away from this other fundamental principle of our nation at its founding? I may not be able to follow Ron Paul all the way down his policy path, but you’d think from the way people are talking, marginalizing the guy, that he is some kind of way out there crackpot.
Are these statements he made really that far out? Or are they powerful truths?
Can any of these other guys think in ways other than two-dimensionally when it comes to combating Islamic terrorism? Rudy says, “the worst thing we can do is show them weakness,” as if strength vs. weakness is the only option we have. (Classic Wilsonian/Warthenian false dichotomy). And this right after he pointed out that the Fort Dix plot was thwarted by “a 16-month investigation done by the FBI and the United States Attorney’s Office.” Not troops, Rudy. Can he not connect the dots?
Lastly, I was struck by Mike Huckabee’s comments in discussing his anti-abortion stance: “We value the life of one as if it’s the life of all, and that’s why we go out for the 12-year-old Boy Scout in North Carolina when he’s lost; that’s why we look for the 13 miners in Sago, West Virginia, when the mine explodes; that’s why we go looking for the hikers in Mount Hood, because we value life, and it’s what separates us from the Islamic jihadists who are out to kill us.” Not so fast Mike. Yeah we all focus on those stories when they happen. We know names, faces. But, quick, which American troops died this week in Iraq? Names, faces, stories? Let’s all think about that before we pat ourselves on the back for “valuing the life of one as if it’s the life of all.”
As a South Carolinian, the saddest part of the debate was when the audience wildly applauded McCain’s statement that the flag issue is settled. I don’t care if every Republican in the state thinks it is settled, it is not, and the issue is not going to just go away.
SGM, a third option is that the first two are equally valid.
Didja hear the wild applause? Apparently one reason that the GOP is in such “sad shape” is that the party faithful (and the 28% of the public still supporting Dear Leader) are drunk on Dubya’s Purple Kool-Aid.
Apparently, Arial’s “brilliant mind” can’t grasp what Paul actually said nor why Islamic fundamentalist terrorists attacked us, either.
Hint: it’s not “because of our liberty”– as the self-congratulatory right wing talking point claims.
RTH:
You have a point, it could, and probably is the case that Rudi’s both a cheesy pandering pol who has his head in the sand about our adversaries. Unfortunately, that seems to be the case with just about all of them in both parties.
The applause was mearly a symptom. Anyone who aspires to be president has an obligation to educate him / herself and lead the public from a rational not emotional position.
Too very few in the public or the media display any real knowledge or serious thought about the issue. Those that do are generally shouted down by others as if trying to “score points on the playground.”
Rudi’s applause just might as well have been Hillary’s for taking some jab at Bush.
The candidates of both main parties are all about emotionalism and “pep rally” leadership: politicians as entertainers. That’s the problem that I have with most of the candidates thus far, and my main disapointment with the “debates.”
Oh well, it’s still early in the process.
I Agree… However, if this is to come about we will require a war
chest… I am attempting to get 1 Million people to send Ron Paul
only $7.00 each per Month… If you have any ideas as to how we
might bring this about please communicate with me and perhaps we
may structure a forum of like minded patriots… Thanks…
Joel… [email protected]
Meanwhile Consider The Following:
Our Only Choice!!! Leadership 2008
Can Ron Paul Win? On The Issues
A Resounding YES!
Knowing this let us then look at the most important benefit… that
Ron Paul brings to the Presidency
“Leadership”
Leadership is Action Through *Example Not Position…
(It is not a position of power nor being in the right place at
the right time, neither define leadership.
It is defined by setting the example through taking action on
such Leadership Traits as Truthfulness! Honesty! Fidelity! )
Ron Paul Has Acted Admirably On All These Leadership Traits:
“Truthfulness” first and foremost… Then: Principle, Integrity,
Honesty,* Fidelity (to their oaths), Honor, Virtue, Compassion,
Courage, Vision, Wisdom and Faith.
DARE TO COMPARE
Can anyone bring forth any other candidate (GOP or DEM, etc.) that
can lay claim to all of these characteristics?
I believe we are all hard pressed to do so… “Strike That”. I
KNOW we ARE hard pressed!
http://leadership2008.bravehost.com
Get the word out “SHARE” with your friends…
one man will stop amnesty
DUNCAN HUNTER
WAKE UP FOLKS !