I've been really busy recently with work and have not been posting much, but I thought I'd take the opportunity to touch on a few things I noticed about last nights GOP debate in Florida.
It was nice to see Hume and his cronies actually trying to create a debate between some of the upper-tire candidates - even though it didn't work. Giuliani immediately attacked Fred Thompson on his stance regarding Tort Reform. This was interesting since Giuliani is probably the most liberal of the GOP bunch - thus, it's really odd he is comparing Thompson's conservatism to his own. Thompson's response to these attacks seemed quite odd. His defense against his position on Tort Reform narrowed the question down to specific cases where he went against his "usual" conservatism. He took the same type of approach in responding to Giuliani’s attack on his litigation concerning "Planned Parenthood," in which he responded in saying that his private law practice does not necessitate action in public office. It begs the question of where he really stands on some of these issues on a personal level. Unlike Giuliani, who has publicly admitted his personal beliefs are different then his public stance (regarding abortion), Thompson has made no such admition. If he is a "closet" liberal in his private life regarding some of the issues, it is ungenuine for him to continue to act like his personal convictions are in harmony with his public record. It could be something that the other campaigns could use to their advantage. Whether Republicans are smart enough to figure this out or not is a different question entirely.
Aside from that, Giuliani really didn't say too much regarding his stance - but he did manage to make a complete dumbbell of himself midway through the debate when he thanked Florida for electing Bush in 2000. What ever support I had for him before last night pretty much disintegrate with that statement. How can an intelligent person with all their faculties functioning properly possibly think the country would be worse off with Al Gore as President? Has Giuliani completely lost his mind!? Bush currently has the worst approval rating of any sitting president (somewhere in the low 20's) and will probably go down as, if the not the worst, at least the second or third worst president ever. How can someone assume that Al Gore, after winning the Nobel Peace Prize of all things, would have gone down in this sort of infamy? Plus, the events in Florida that got Bush elected in 2000 where illegal! It went down as one of the worst election debacles of all time...and Giuliani is thanking them!? I'm getting myself too worked up while typing this so I'm gonna move on.
Romney looked really flustered last night for some reason. First, his hair was messed up, his face looked tired, and his appearance was generally disheveled. People shouldn't judge a president on looks, but don't forget about 1960. John McCain seemed to admit he is trying to rebuild his relationship with evangelicals. This is an honest approach because there is no way to alter his rather liberal voting record on certain issues; but I don't think voters will accept this. There is really no reason to believe that as president he will change his ways. Huckabee, Hunter, Tancredo, and Paul didn't really add much of anything new. I don't really care that Brownback dropped out, but I do miss laughing at Tommy Thompson during these debates because the four mentioned above are all pretty boring most of the time (Huckabee can sometimes bring laughs and Paul always seems to excite the crowd but thats about it).
I think the debate can be summed up with one quote from Fox Noise (to quote Olbermann) anchor Brit Hume: "can you tell us what your "beef" is with Rudy?"...Yep, we're dealing with the cream of the crop of news here.
-tg
It was nice to see Hume and his cronies actually trying to create a debate between some of the upper-tire candidates - even though it didn't work. Giuliani immediately attacked Fred Thompson on his stance regarding Tort Reform. This was interesting since Giuliani is probably the most liberal of the GOP bunch - thus, it's really odd he is comparing Thompson's conservatism to his own. Thompson's response to these attacks seemed quite odd. His defense against his position on Tort Reform narrowed the question down to specific cases where he went against his "usual" conservatism. He took the same type of approach in responding to Giuliani’s attack on his litigation concerning "Planned Parenthood," in which he responded in saying that his private law practice does not necessitate action in public office. It begs the question of where he really stands on some of these issues on a personal level. Unlike Giuliani, who has publicly admitted his personal beliefs are different then his public stance (regarding abortion), Thompson has made no such admition. If he is a "closet" liberal in his private life regarding some of the issues, it is ungenuine for him to continue to act like his personal convictions are in harmony with his public record. It could be something that the other campaigns could use to their advantage. Whether Republicans are smart enough to figure this out or not is a different question entirely.
Aside from that, Giuliani really didn't say too much regarding his stance - but he did manage to make a complete dumbbell of himself midway through the debate when he thanked Florida for electing Bush in 2000. What ever support I had for him before last night pretty much disintegrate with that statement. How can an intelligent person with all their faculties functioning properly possibly think the country would be worse off with Al Gore as President? Has Giuliani completely lost his mind!? Bush currently has the worst approval rating of any sitting president (somewhere in the low 20's) and will probably go down as, if the not the worst, at least the second or third worst president ever. How can someone assume that Al Gore, after winning the Nobel Peace Prize of all things, would have gone down in this sort of infamy? Plus, the events in Florida that got Bush elected in 2000 where illegal! It went down as one of the worst election debacles of all time...and Giuliani is thanking them!? I'm getting myself too worked up while typing this so I'm gonna move on.
Romney looked really flustered last night for some reason. First, his hair was messed up, his face looked tired, and his appearance was generally disheveled. People shouldn't judge a president on looks, but don't forget about 1960. John McCain seemed to admit he is trying to rebuild his relationship with evangelicals. This is an honest approach because there is no way to alter his rather liberal voting record on certain issues; but I don't think voters will accept this. There is really no reason to believe that as president he will change his ways. Huckabee, Hunter, Tancredo, and Paul didn't really add much of anything new. I don't really care that Brownback dropped out, but I do miss laughing at Tommy Thompson during these debates because the four mentioned above are all pretty boring most of the time (Huckabee can sometimes bring laughs and Paul always seems to excite the crowd but thats about it).
I think the debate can be summed up with one quote from Fox Noise (to quote Olbermann) anchor Brit Hume: "can you tell us what your "beef" is with Rudy?"...Yep, we're dealing with the cream of the crop of news here.
-tg
4 comments:
I think you’re being way too hard on Thompson. His position on tort reform could certainly be construed as a conservative one, as he wants to leave matter to the states. Although you wouldn’t know it by looking at modern politics, traditional conservatives used to stand for a smaller federal government and more power in the hands of the states. I also don’t think it is fair to criticize Thompson for work he did on behalf of his clients even if he may not share their positions. Lawyers are supposed to advocate for their clients no matter what; for example, defense attorneys are supposed to defend their clients even if the defendant has confessed to the crime and the attorney knows the defendant is lying about his innocence. It’s not like Thompson made a legal career out of trying abortion rights cases. Basically, I don’t think these are serious criticisms that could derail Thompson’s candidacy.
I also think it’s unfair to say, “How can an intelligent person with all their faculties functioning properly possibly think the country would be worse off with Al Gore as President?” Now I obviously think America would far, far better off if Gore won the presidency (and actually got to take the office) in 2000. But I don’t think it’s appropriate public discourse to dismiss anyone who supports Bush as unintelligent. There are intelligent people who think Bush has done a good job, and they simply see the world differently then we do. They may think that Bush’s tax cuts helped the economy rebound after 9/11, and they may believe that Bush was right to invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein before he could supply aid to Al Qaeda, with whom he shared a common enemy in the United States. I strongly disagree with them on both of these points, but I wouldn’t just dismiss them as being unintelligent.
Remember, approval ratings don’t always tell the whole story. Harry Truman’s approval ratings were also in the 20s by the end of his presidency, but he is now looked upon by historians as one of the 6 or 7 greatest presidents (I’m no historian, but I would personally would put him at 4th). I highly doubt that Bush will achieve such a reversal of fortune, but we can’t be absolutely, 100% positive that history will not vindicate him. If Giuliani wants to believe that Bush’s presidency was a good thing, Democrats should be able to debate him (and win) on the merits instead of merely questioning his intelligence.
Romney did look a little disheveled, but I think it was a welcome change from the perfectly tailored robot we are accustomed to seeing. In the words of Time’s political analyst Mark Halperin, his messed-up hair was “very humanizing, very un-Mitt.”
And while you said Huckabee didn’t add anything new, I hope you are not dismissing his candidacy. Make no mistake, Huckabee is a serious contender for the Republican nomination. If I were to assess Republicans’ chances at winning the nomination right now, I would have Thompson as the favorite with a slight edge over Huckabee, and Romney in 3rd. Giuliani has a slight chance in my mind, and McCain has none.
By the way, I just thought I’d let you know that Stephen Colbert is ahead of Dennis Kucinich in the polls. No joke.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/10/the_colbert_effect.html
Parimal-
I wrote a really good response to your comment, but my computer froze and I lost everything. I don't really have time to type all that again - so if this seems brief then just let me know if I need to further clarify.
I wasn't talking about who I think is more conservative regarding Tort Reform. The main point was that I do not think Giuliani would win a "who-is-more-conservative" battle with Thompson (from the point of view of Republican voters). You and I clearly understand the difference between "Thompson the lawyer" and "Thompson the President" but a lot of people group private and public life together (just look at the way Republicans morph Giuliani’s public abortion stance with his private – even though they wouldn’t support him anyway). I think that if a lot of voters have Thompson's personal law firm history constantly drilled into them it may influence their vote.
I never said that people who support Bush, or even think he has had a good presidency, are unintelligent. I question how anyone can make such a baseless claim that Gore would have been worse then Bush. First off, how in the world can we accurately support a prediction of what “could have” happened? Secondly, it seems even less logical to make this claim due to the honors Gore has received for his humanitarian work and leadership. Lastly, my statement needs to be taken within context. Giuliani thanked Florida for "electing" Bush in 2000. How can a candidate running in a so called "democracy" give thanks to a state that conducted one of the most undemocratic elections in United States history? (I put democracy in quotations because the country is actually a Democratic Republic yet Republicans love to talk about how great a democracy we are). Can you explain how Giuliani justifies his appreciation for a state conducting such an undemocratic election (whether on purpose of accident)?
Good interpretation on Romney's appearance. The only concern I would have if I was his campaign manager would be: can he go the distance? It really looked like the rigorous campaign trail had taken its toll on him. I wouldn't worry about his campaign struggling to get votes; I would worry about his campaign struggling to keep him up to the challenge. Then again anyone could be having one off day.
I think Huckabee has certainly emerged as a viable underdog to the race. I just didn't see anything that was really worth writing about during the debate. He pretty much conducted himself the way he does each debate. As did Ron Paul.
The poll link you sent me is no longer available, but it doesn't surprise me. That doesn't mean that Colbert is a better candidate - all it means is that the moronic youth of the country would throw away their vote for a candidate who (statistically) can not possibly win. If Paris Hilton ran for President in one state I bet she would pull higher then a lot of candidates too...ok, maybe that’s a stretch, but a celebrity like Angelina Jolie who is very intelligent and actually knows something about politics could actually poll better due to name recognition and publicity. This is a greater testament to the idiocy of America then it is to Kucinich's campaign.
-tg
I don’t really understand what you mean when you say Republicans morph Giuliani’s public stance on abortion with his private one. I can’t imagine any Republican saying, “Oh, Giuliani’s pro-choice, but at least he’s personally opposed to abortion.” Similarly, I could never imagine a Democrat criticizing John Kerry or Hillary Clinton for being personally opposed to abortion, considering their staunch support for abortion rights. Regardless, I think it is a bad idea for Giuliani to get into the game of questioning his opponents’ conservative credentials on social issues, because anything that puts the focus on social issues will hurt Giuliani in the primaries. He should stick to focusing on terrorism, crime, and the economy, where his positions closely align with the Republican base. I think he’s been doing a pretty good job of that so far.
With regards to Gore, if conservatives can argue that Bush has been a good president, it is not very hard for conservatives to argue that Gore would have been a bad one. They could make the claim that if Gore was president, we would never have invaded Iraq and Saddam Hussein would still be in power, possibly reconstituting his weapons of mass destruction programs and giving aid to al Qaeda. They could also argue from an economic standpoint that Gore would not have proposed the tax cuts they believe revived the economy after 9/11. You bring up the honors Gore has received for his humanitarian work and leadership. Well, all of that has to do with Gore’s campaign to raise awareness of global warming. Quite frankly, I don’t even think Gore would have been able to do that much to combat global warming if he was elected in 2000. Keep in mind that in 1997, the U.S. Senate passed a resolution basically saying it would not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. You know what the vote was? 95-0. Among those 95 were liberal icons such as Russ Feingold, Paul Wellstone, Ted Kennedy, and Barbara Boxer. Global warming would never have had a chance at being confronted under a Gore presidency if America lacked the political will to do something about it. In that respect, I think Gore has done far more to fight global warming than he would have if he won the presidency in 2000. The awards he has won cannot be a reflection of his hypothetical performance as president.
As for Giuliani thanking Florida, I would propose that he is a type of politician who believes “the ends justify the means” (especially regarding his general disregard for liberty when compared to security). I guess he is thanking Florida because the positive consequences of Bush being president (in his opinion) far outweigh any questions about the electoral process in Florida in 2000.
I agree Romney may be starting to tire a little. He’s probably campaigned harder than anyone on the Republican side, especially in Iowa and New Hampshire. He has made a number of gaffes recently, from saying that he would decide whether to attack Iran by sitting down with his lawyers to confusing Barack Obama with Osama bin Laden. In the debate, one of his lines was quite possibly the most incoherent thing I have ever heard from a politician. Read it for yourself and see if you can figure it out, because I certainly can’t:
“All of us on the stage are Republican. But the question is, who will be able to build the house that Ronald Reagan built -- who will be able to strengthen that house, because that's the house that's going to build the house that Clinton, Hillary, wants to build.”
Seriously, if he just pulled out a dictionary and started saying random words, it likely would have made a lot more sense than that line.
By the way, today Huckabee jumped ahead of Romney for the first time in Rasmussen Reports’ national daily presidential tracking poll. Romney still has leads in Iowa and New Hampshire, though.
Oh, the link for the poll had the “ml” cut off. It was supposed to be .html, not .ht (the blog cut it off, I don’t know why). Anyways, Rasmussen Reports released a new poll that showed if the nominees were Hillary and Giuliani and Colbert ran as an independent candidate, Colbert would get 13% of the vote. In a 3-way race with Hillary and Thompson, Colbert gets 12%. Imagine if he ran as an independent candidate and polled above 15%--he would be eligible for the debates! A major presidential debate involving Stephen Colbert’s character would probably be the most amazing moment in American political history.
I wasn't very clear when I explained my view regarding Republicans mixing personal and public life. I added "even though they wouldn’t support him anyway" regarding the morph of Giuliani’s platform on abortion, but after reading it again it didn't really make sense. I meant to say that his private views on social issues such as his number of marriages, views on gay marriage, and abortion seem to be constantly creeping into the debates regarding "public" policy. If other candidates wanted to they could probably use a similar approach to try and sway voters away from Fred Thompson. My main point was, nonetheless, that Giuliani should be weary of the "I'm more conservative then you" debate. And I see that you agree with me on this.
You say that Gore's awards do not necessarily reflect what Gore's presidency would have been like. So why is it appropriate for Giuliani to make assumptions about how good or bad Gore's hypothetical presidency would be based on his awards? Rudy even stated in the debate that the world might be a "little cooler" with Gore as president, thus using Gore's post-2000 policy record as a reflection of what he we would have seen in a Gore Administration.
You say: "if conservatives can argue that Bush has been a good president, it is not very hard for conservatives to argue that Gore would have been a bad one." Conservatives arguing with liberals about Bush's presidency is in no way on equal footing with conservatives arguing with liberals about Gore's "hypothetical" presidency. The first is a debate based on the historical events of the last seven years. The second is a debate based on absolutely nothing but groundless assumptions (unless conservatives can now travel back in time and see what Gore did as President). I am not being too hard on Giuliani. What he said was very dimwitted and I question how anyone could logically agree with him.
Also, you really believe Giuliani thanked Florida for the 2000 election because he believes it to be teleological? In this case, "a type of politician who believes the ends justify the means" could support scrapping the Constitution all together using that same explanation. Any person who is willing to ignore the Constitution is not fit to be president of this country. If Giuliani is going to support UNdemocratic elections because the "ends justify the means" then he is unfit to be a president who is sworn to protect democracy at all costs. Either way, what he said completely undermined one of the fundamental values the United States is founded on.
Thanks for writing that quote from Romney. I remember hearing him mumbling that during the debate and being struck with utter confusion. If you saw the look on his face afterwards you would have seen a look of fear and shock. I think what he was trying to say was "We need to build the house that Reagan built, not the one that Clinton wants to build." It's a pretty big goof-up when you accidentally say "we want to build the house of Hillary Clinton" instead of "we don't want to build the house of Hillary Clinton” He is gonna need to get himself together quickly or he's gonna lose ground. It is no surprise that Huckabee has passed him in the polls. He is running a very good campaign and people are starting to actually believe he can win.
On to Colbert. Look.. I love his show, but lets not get carried away here. His book looks really funny as well (although it doesn’t look as good as Stewart's, but I'll make that call after I read it). You say him getting into the debates would probably be the "most amazing moment in American political history," but I say it would probably be the saddest moment in American political history. If the American people are so disenfranchised with government and politics that they turn to a comedian to lead the way then our country has some serious civic issues we need to address. And I mean serious.
-tg
Post a Comment