I forgot to DVR the debate tonight, thankfully, CNN replayed it at midnight so I didn't have to watch on the laptop. I anxiously awaited watching the Kerr question from the member of the Clinton Campaign... but it appears CNN edited it out for the replay. I thought the final commercial break was running long, now I know why.
Quick thoughts on each of the candidates and their performances:
Mike Huckabee gives the best sound bytes and always answers with a good cadence. It makes his responses more entertaining, but is there enough substance? His language reminds me a bit of Ross Perot. I like Governor Huckabee, but I wonder if there is a reason I haven't felt completely comfortable jumping in 100%. I keep finding myself uneasy that he is a committed conservative. Scholarships for illegal aliens? I understand Huckabee's principal on the matter... but every dollar spent on an illegal alien going to college is a dollar that could have been spent on a citizen instead. Until all citizens who want to go to college can, illegals should not get a penny of tax dollars.
Fred Thompson and John McCain seemed the most Presidential tonight. Their seriousness and candor seemed to rise above the rest of the candidates a bit and they both don't mind being detailed in their responses, even though the format and time constraints don't really allow it. Thompson stays high on my list and Senator McCain is on the rise.
Giuliani looked pretty good, but some of his responses came off a bit petty. His record in New York certainly gives him credible experience, but it still sounds funny talking about experience as a mayor preparing you for Washington, DC. It doesn't disqualify him and shouldn't be taken lightly... but there must be a substantial bureaucratic difference between the White House and City Hall. I know that, I hope he does.
Mitt Romney seemed like the slick preppie kid who was growing tired of being picked on. Romney doesn't perform overly poorly, but doesn't live up to expectations either.
Duncan Hunter never disappoints conservatives, when he actually gets a chance to answer a question. I like Duncan Hunter and hope he is given ample opportunity to be involved in the next administration.
Tom Tancredo had a better performance than previous debates. His issues haven't changed but he didn't stumble on them nearly as much. Still he is looked at, and even seems to understand himself, that he is a one issue candidate... as serious as illegal immigration is, we have other problems too.
And Ron Paul. Whatever. It was nice to hear him say he won't run as an independent... now I just hope he can get behind the party and help us keep the White House. Even more importantly, I hope he'll get behind the troops until the war is won.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Duncan a position in the next administration? How about him being the next administration. The only thing keeping him from winning is you. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, and your decision. The tide is slowly shifting his direction.
Mike Huckabee is getting plenty of post-debate attention -- GOOD, BAD and UGLY -- following last night's CNN-YouTube Debate between Republican presidential candidates.
First, the GOOD -- Michael Goodwin at the New York Daily News recognizes what’s going on. The headline of his article this morning, Don’t look now, but Mike Huckabee is comin’ on strong, was accurate, and his opening paragraphs reinforce it:
-- Huck is rising, and now we know why. News reports that former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is sprinting toward the front of the Republican pack have provoked lots of head-scratching and questions of "Who?" But anyone who watched Wednesday night's debate now understands much better who he is and why he is suddenly the GOP man to watch.
Now, the BAD -- Jason Tuohey appeared to know what's going on. He began his Boston Globe piece this morning this way:
-- Mike Huckabee’s campaign is surging, and he may have won the “Mr. Congeniality” award from last night’s debate, but some political analysts think the former Arkansas governor needs to start taking his candidacy more seriously.
In the next two paragraphs, however, he offered a counter-punch:
-- Conservative columnist and blogger Andrew Sullivan commented on Huckabee’s performance:
“(Huckabee) is easily the most appealing candidate for the current big-spending, evangelical, Southern Republican party. I don't find his religious schtick in any way appealing. It's glib in one area where glibness really is inappropriate. To say something like ‘Jesus was far too smart to seek public office’ may have a superficial appeal, but it is also a cheapening of Jesus' radical injunction to forswear worldly power and wealth.”
Tuohey failed to take into account that Sullivan is openly gay -- a fact that might have something to do with his reluctance to embrace Huckabee.
Finally, the UGLY -- It took three paragraphs to get there, but writer Liz Mair finally reached the misguided point behind the headline of her American Spectator article, Huckabee’s Religion Problem, today:
-- But the real question is, will his strategy of pushing religion to the forefront benefit him elsewhere, or is he taking a risk in employing it, so far as other early primary states are concerned?
-- If Liz had only paid attention to some of the latest poll results, she would have learned presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has taken the lead over his Republican opponents in Iowa and is closing the gap in several other states. So maybe, Liz, his religion is NOT a problem.
Attention like this "comes with the territory," they say, and it will be interesting to see how writers in the mainstream news media treat the former Arkansas governor from this point. More importantly, it will be interesting to see how many voters become HUCKABEELIEVERS™.
This was an incredibly interesting debate. I'm a little disappointed that CNN edited out the response of Kerr. From what I can tell, CNN was simply being careless (hurting their credibility) but I don't think anything nefarious was at play on their part. CNN should have known his connections and he shouldn't have been on. This only adds to my belief that the whole YouTube debate format is a complete sham. They're not real questions from real people; they're questions from CNN producers filtered through the voices of real people.
That being said, I do think that Kerr's question and other tough ones were extremely important to ask and I would find it a shame if people were to try and discredit the substance of Kerr's question or his background because of his ties to Clinton. At the very least, write off Kerr but critics should address his question about homosexuality in the military and how ridiculous the current policy is. Also (presumably before the audience knew of Kerr's Clinton ties) I was upset to hear the Republican audience actually boo a decorated service member. So much for supporting our troops even if their opinions differ.
As for what was happening on stage, I think Huckabee walked away with a win but only because Romney performed so poorly and Giuliani took a couple of cheap shots right out of the gate. Huckabee is easily the most likable Republican but like you said, he's good at sound bytes and that's about it. In my humble opinion, the last person we need in the White House is another individual who (publicly) answers to his God first and the American people second. Huckabee did, however, give the best response to whether or not he believes every word of the Bible. Romney fumbled that one bad with all his stammering, especially when faith is supposedly so important to him. I also liked how artfully Huckabee dodged the “what would Jesus do” about capital punishment question with a funny line. His initial response though was incredibly heartfelt and I while I disagree with it, I definitely respect it. Killing a person should absolutely be the hardest thing an elected official should have to do and I’m glad that he at least recognizes as much.
McCain really shined last night, especially when challenging Romney on water boarding and torture. I find it sad and incredibly offensive that anyone, let alone a presidential candidate, cannot call water boarding torture. "Protecting American interrogative methods" is a cheap political cover and Romney took full advantage of it. I just don't have many words to describe how angry the whole thing makes me. McCain’s face during Romney’s response said it all: you could tell his heart was hurting over the fact that anyone could play politics with human suffering.
Fred was just pitiful and he seemed really out of his element. He got off to a pretty rough start and I almost muted the TV because all of his “umm” and “uhhs” were very distracting. He’s clearly a smart individual, but in the deep, contemplative sense. I don’t think he’s quick enough on his feet to be president. Honestly, I think over this course of his acting career he’s become too reliant on written lines and he needs to break that habit fast if he’s going to win the nomination. In many circumstances, as President you won’t have time to lean back in your chair with your hand on your chin and quote the founding fathers.
As for Giuliani, I still like him the most out of all the Republicans but I was a little disappointed with his cheap shot at the beginning of the debate. The whole “sanctuary mansion” thing was a low blow and while it’s completely relevant whether or not Romney had illegals working at his residence, I think Rudy would have been better off not bringing it up during the debate. I agree almost completely with Rudy’s immigration policy, especially what he implemented in New York City. I don’t see how any “compassionate” conservative can argue that children of illegal immigrants should be denied an education in this country, and Romney (I think it was) tried to twist Rudy’s position like a pretzel and it was quite transparent. We’re headed down a very dangerous path when we start criminalizing children for the crimes of their parents.
As for the three other guys, Duncan Hunter scares me and I’m glad he doesn’t have a chance, Tom Tancredo was lost in the mix and was overshadowed by the others, and I agree with your sentiments about Ron Paul: whatever.
Finally, where were the questions about health care? There wasn't a single one, and CNN had to have known that this is a very important issue for many Americans.
I'll add to my comments about about the Clinton "plant" Kerr. I don't think Anderson Cooper knew anything about it, but if anyone with the production team knew about his ties to Clinton then they should be fired. Allowing his question and his live response would indeed be nefarious and incredibly irresponsible, but I do not believe that the producers sat around a table and discussed recruiting a Clinton "operative" to appear in the debate.
Will: So much to reply to. I'll get to it all later.
But I don't disagree with your last comment at all. If you read my prior post, I don't think it was some deep conspiracy of CNN or Anderson Cooper to let these through. There might have been a couple people down the food chain with other motives... and if so we agree that their firing is appropriate. Anderson Cooper certainly seemed taken off guard by the accusation.
But see my later post about journalism ethics. CNN had a duty to research the questioners and report them honestly. It failed to do so. In fact, it failed to uphold journalism ethics on multiple points. Whether malice or incompetence, it really doesn't matter. CNN dropped the ball it had an ethical duty to maintain.
I don't think it was appropriate to edit out the debate either. Instead a disclaimer should have been added audibly before the question and on the screen.
Will:
Why does Duncan Hunter scare you? Policy or do you think he's the boogey man? I like Hunter, but he doesn't inspire me. If there is anything this country needs right now is a President who can inspire. No matter which side you fall on politically, we have some tough issues before us that are going to require tough choices. A bit of inspiration will go a long way in bridging the divide and getting us back to work.
Any believer should answer to God first, the country second. Boy Scouts answer to God first, are you scared of them too? Man is imperfect and man's ways are imperfect. Do I expect a President to be put in a siutation to make a tough choice and question whether it is what God wants him to do? Absolutely. I question what God's direction is for me often. I am wrong often. I don't believe there is anything wrong with looking to the Word for guidance as long as you understand it and how it applies to our lives and struggles. Contrary to some liberal beliefs, there is more to the bible than "turning the other cheek". Even Jesus got angry, turned over tables, and threw the money changers out of the temple. Having a Preacher in the White House in itself doesn't scare me. Having someone who is not humbled before our almighty God does.
If you don't believe a candidate should answer to God first, then you should only support an atheist for office. Anyone who says they believe in Christ will either look to God first or has lost touch with their Savior. We will all sin by choice and all make mistakes... but if we fail to recognize His amazing grace and ultimate judgment, then our country is truly doomed.
As a non-believer I suppose you will always fear those who believe and would answer to God. As a believer, I fear anyone who would not answer to God, and I pray for God's guidance for them as well as His entrance into your heart.
Good breakdown. I think strictly debate wise I think Huckabee and Thompson did the best.
Post a Comment