Anybody watch the Republicans debate last night on Fox? Me, not. The glorious Time Warner cable Basic package has no, repeat, no, cable news channels. Which is probably just as well; the wife and chirren are sick and tired of me and politics. I checked in with both Andrew Sullivan and The Corner last night at bedtime, to see how it had gone, and got the impression that Fred Thompson had won. The Corner, which is very far from Huckabee country, gave me the impression that Huck had done poorly, but Andrew thought much better of his performance. (It was fascinating, by the way, to watch the Cornerites deflate over Gov. Romney's lousy perf. And it's also pretty clear that if ol' Fred came alive in NH to attack Romney, and in SC to attack Huck, that he's auditioning to be McCain's running mate).
This morning, though, I see that Dean Barnett, that hardcore Romneyite who writes for The Weekly Standard, gave the debate to Huckabee. Excerpt:
Mike Huckabee's an exceptional politician whose package of skills is often sold short. He's a lot more than an affable dispenser of one-liners who only knows how to play to the home crowd. For people who might be inclined to dismiss Huckabee, compare his response to Thompson's adroit offensive with McCain's blundering into the climate warming thicket. These two are the likely finalists, and one of them is much better at politics than the other.Here's what I said on November 28, the night of the YouTube debate, the night that catapulted Huckabee to his huge lead in Iowa: "Was this a seismic night? I'll give that one a big yes. Tonight heralded the arrival of Mike Huckabee as a force in this race. Not a spoiler, not a wildcard, but a force."
Although fewer people watched last evening's festivities, tonight was even bigger for Huckabee. For the first time, it was not only possible but easy to imagine Huckabee as the leader of 300 million people. He combined this newfound authority with his old standbys of off-the-charts likability and a deft way of tapping into aspirational politics.
In the race for the Republican nomination, Mike Huckabee is going to be tough to beat.
Wow. Any of you watch the debate? What are your impressions?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Nate,
I know that there is some truth in your statement: "Why is it that the other candidates get real questions, while Paul is asked loaded questions...."
I am only guessing now, but maybe it's because 1) Fox is POed at the threatening and potty-mouth way the rabid nut case wing of Paul's supporters act toward Fox's broadcast people; and 2) it's entertaining for viewers and good for ratings to see Paul take the bait and show how politically far out and shallow he is. People of all political persuasions like to poke fun at celebrities that are considered weird.
I am not saying it's proper, but Paul made his own bed. He now has to sleep in it. Just like Huck and McCain.
I tried to send this earlier, but it's being "held for approval."
Cleveland,
"1) Fox is POed at the threatening and potty-mouth way the rabid nut case wing of Paul's supporters act toward Fox's broadcast people"
Frankly, if Fox is going to punish someone on national television for something that SOMEBODY ELSE is doing, then Fox deserves whatever treatment they get. Are you suggesting that it's okay for the media to try to smear a candidate just because some people who vote for that candidate are unruly?
"2) it's entertaining for viewers and good for ratings to see Paul take the bait and show how politically far out and shallow he is."
Shallow? You've really lost me there. How exactly is Paul "shallow" when he's the only one trying to dig deeper than soundbites on half of these issues? He's the only one that wants to open up debates on things like monetary policy, or on what the root causes of Islamic fundamentalism might be (and as PhD student in religion, I can assure you that he's got a better grasp on that issue than any other candidate, at least on the Republican side). How he's displayed any kind of shallowness is beyond me.
Maybe he's "far out," but if the media and the American people would rather resort to mockery than to serious debate of ideas outside the mainstream, then that reflects far more poorly on the American people than it does on Paul or even his most whacked-out supporters.
"[Paul]also did NOT say that he "abandoned" that [ 9/11 Truthers] idea (as if he ever held it), he said that he's never believed it and always repudiated it." Kristen M
Of course I could be wrong, but I'm pretty certain that, after watching the thing twice last night, Paul said he "abandoned" the idea.
Nate, if you don't think Paul is politically shallow, I won't waste my time tyring to convince you otherwise. I'll just take a page from his Newsletter and 9/11 Truthers book and say that I don't tell other people what to believe. Does my answer seem shallow for you?
Yes, Cleveland, making accusations of someone being "politically shallow" without giving any reaons, and without even stating what you mean by the accusation, seems pretty shallow to me.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.