GOP South Carolina debate
Friday January 11, 2008
Categories: Republicans
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...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
Rod, I'm in a mixed marriage (I'm conservative, my husband's liberal) and I value a peaceful home life, so we never watch Fox News. (Yes, in our house, love means never getting to watch Sean Hannity! It's a small price to pay.)
So... I missed the debate, too. But like you, I read The Corner this morning, and all those Romney fanatics were swooning over Thompson. On Townhall, they had an open reader blog about the debate, and out of about 150 comments, 90 % of them were in praise of Fred. I'm here in Beaufort, South Carolina, and will have a chance to see Thompson speak tomorrow at a local restaurant. Suddenly, people no longer seem quite so sure that Fred is Dead.
I'm desperately trying to find out where I can see Huckabee down here before next weekend's primary...
Thompson looked far better than anyone. he had command of the issues, he was cutting and even sarcastic at times, but never mean or cutting. If he had bEen like this the whole campaign, Mccain would be back in Arizona. QueStion becomes if it's too late, becauser based on last night, Thompson is the class oF the field.
Mccain was again nasty. I'm at a loss-since troops are still in Korea and Germany, we should be in Iraq indefinitely as well? Better question-why are we still in Germany and Korea? Paul has been exposed as a loon, but he often got the better of Mccain, substantively, in their exchanges.
Giuliani and Huckabee both embarrassed themselves by swooning over Israel. We've given them a ton of money and arms. We've wasted time and energy chasing the fool's gold of a peace accord. Know what-if some idiot in Ramallah or Gaza fires a katushkah rocket at Israel, BLOW THEM UP. Use your army,stop whining like 6 year olds and may be the Palestinians wouLD be more realistic if they understood murder will be greeted with force. And tell them both the gravy train is over, a point which Paul made strongly. We borrow money through the Fed tbill sales from China, and use it to prop up idiocy across the globe. That is insane,and Huckabee and Giuliani didn't grasp that at all.
Romney wants to CLOSE THE DEAL. What will it take for you to buy me? C'mon, what ever it takes. STRENGTH THROUGH RITUAL UNDERWARE!
You could probably have watched it online at foxnews.com.
The group of viewers in the test room started out with 2, I think, in favor of Thompson, and when it was over, the majority had given the debate to Thompson. Ron Paul came out the worst, in their opinion.
I only watched part of it.
Afterwards, Sean and Alan interviewed each of the participants, but I didn't watch much of that, either.
Bugg,
As a Mormon, your last line in your post was HIGHLY OFFENSIVE.
I thought Huck handled the "Southern Baptist" question quite well.
Despite his crazy associations, I thought Ron Paul gave the best answers.
I thought Fred gave a strong performance. On electability alone, I will give him another look.
Didn't watch it. Seems a lot of folks have as much faith in the resurrection of Thompson as they do the resurrection of Christ. Yes, he is just a McCain plant in the debate. You know, for folks who were criticizing the rest of us for valuing style over substance, they sure are swooning for a one-night performance.
Out of the standard format candidates, Thompson was the best.
Paul was still the strongest. Say what you want about him, he still has the best picture of where our foreign policy should be headed.
Seems a lot of folks have as much faith in the resurrection of Thompson as they do the resurrection of Christ.
I think "desperate hope" is a better word than faith, but otherwise you're probably right, and I say this as someone who was rooting for Thompson above the other first tier candidates.
I was impressed with Huckabee, especially his answer to the "women's submission" question. He didn't apologize, but he still managed to come across as likeable.
Paul's answers were sound, but the fact that he couldn't hear the questions hurt him, and made him look like a frail old man. A sympathetic character, but not a world leader. Romney looked like a jerk when he attacked him.
The underwear comment was way over the line. You owe an apology to DeeAnn and any other LDS who might be reading this.
DeeAnn-
I apologize; it was inappropriate. Romney's failings have more to do with his salesman persona impulse than being a Mormon. Looking back, it was a weak attempt at humor. And bad spelling.
Paul substantively makes a lot of sense. But clearly judging him by some of his past statements and the company he keeps,you cannot defend nor support him, no matter how sensible his positions are.
Bugg wrote:
if some idiot in Ramallah or Gaza fires a katushkah rocket at Israel, BLOW THEM UP. Use your army,stop whining like 6 year olds and may be the Palestinians wouLD be more realistic if they understood murder will be greeted with force.
Wow, wonder why the Israelis have never though of that?
Seriously, Bugg, where have you been? The Israelis have used force more often than not.
Actually, I couldn't tell if I was watching the debate or Dr. Strangelove. If it was Dr. Strangelove here are the parts:
Brig. Gen. Jack D. Ripper- Mitt Romney
Maj. T.J. "King" Kong (Slim Pickens)- Fred Thompson
Gen. "Buck" Turgidson (George C. Scott)- John McCain
President Merkin Muffley (Peter Sellers)- Mike Huckabee
Dr. Strangelove (Peter Sellers)- Rudy Gulliani
Ron Paul, well I guess he is Stanley Kubrick. He understands how nutty these guys (both parties) really are and the reckless folly we are heading into. I especially hope that everyone listened to Paul's schooling of the other canidates on economics. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE take Paul's advice and sudy Von Mises and Austrian economics. Your not going to understand what is going on unless you can understand the Austrian view of the business cycle and the causes of the Great Depression. We are near tough times here and the choice is between tough times and extremely tough times. The tough times will mean the government staying out of this and letting the market take care of it. The extremely tough times will happen of the government gets involved. There is no way for the government to avoid what they caused. Too bad only 8% of the republican party gets it.
Mr. Geerdes-
Why are we interfering ? Why are we even involved? Why are we supplying arms and financial aid to both parties? Why are we AGAIN buying into the fool's gold of "the peace process"? Again, a shame that Paul has been exposed as a whack job, because he's correct on this substantively.
Kill each other, make a deal, WHATEVER;we're outta here. May be if that message was sent a long time ago-act like adults and stop looking for someone else to solve this mess-it would have long been settled. And Arafat's beard wife wouldn't be living in Paris off American taxpayer millions in her Swiss bank account.
There's been enough bandwidth, ink, time and treasure wasted on this. Either the Palestinians accept Israel and they make a deal, or they fight it out. We can dance around it all day, but really, that's all there really is. I don't see the point of anything else. And on this Paul is right. Our involvement hasn't accomplished anything, and Bush's latest burning desire for another empty piece of treaty paper before his term's end is just the latest example.
But clearly judging him by some of his past statements and the company he keeps,you cannot defend nor support him, no matter how sensible his positions are.
Support an unnecessary war in Iraq that's killed tens of thousands: regrettable mistake, but let's move on.
Make some puerile statements about protected minorities in an obscure newsletter 10-15 years ago: eeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!
I'd agree with Barnett that Huck looked better, more presidential in his answers this time, though I don't think any of these "debates" are actual debates, so I don't really how anybody could win them in a meaningful sense of winning an argument. But the focus group on Fox afterwards thought Thompson won, mainly because he attacked Huckabee (mostly for raising taxes), though I thought Huckabee defended his record much better this time than when Romney attacked him in the last debate. And yes, he will have to attack McCain's pro-life credentials if he wants to win, because McCain simply doesn't care as much about those types of issues as Huckabee, and he needs to make that clear to socially conservative voters.
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
Not unless McCain thinks the AARP vote alone can carry him to the White House.
Thompson's attacks make strategic sense, even if he is now the longest of longshots. To have any chance to win, he needs to become the mainstream conservative candidate -- the guy Rush, Hannity, the Cornerites, etc. decide to rally around. His first imperative, therefore, was to do whatever he could to help knock Romney out of the race.
But the Fred Campaign also can't survive without an outright victory in South Carolina. Since he recognizes, correctly, that SC is naturally Huck Country, he has to go directly after Huckabee there.
Thompson's now at 4th-and-goal from beyond the 50 yard line, and for him the game almost certainly ends in South Carolina.
David Stocker:
You're onto something regarding the cast of Dr. Strangelove ...
Bugg,
Apology accepted.
Rod, it's too bad you missed it; it was the only Real debate this year.
I felt sorry for Paul. He is the GOP's Kucinich, and has no place in a serious debate of candidates. He would not when asked, for example, order his people to stop saying the U.S. was behind 9/11 to get us into war. He did say he has "abandoned" that idea, but that his supporters wouldn't listen to him.
As for your boy, John, it was easy to see why Mitt got the most Republican votes in NH and is leading in delegates. :-)
Paul once again showed why he's the only one I'd trust to be the leader of my country. He's starting to get a lot better at dealing with the gang of bullies in the media and on the stage who are probably too dense to even understand his positions, let alone insightfully critique them.
McCain revealed himself as the bigot that he really is. His "joke" about the burqas? If the media is going to get all over Paul's case for racist comments he never even made, but not make a big deal out of McCain making insensitive comments on national television, then I'll have lost all faith in the integrity of media in this country.
Cleveland,
If Paul doesn't have a place in the serious debate, it's because the goons at Fox News are don't everything they can to ensure that he can't fully participate in it. Why is it that the other candidates get real questions, while Paul is asked loaded questions clearly intended to get him to either turn off some of his voters or make himself look like a fool on television?
He certainly does belong in the debate, if for no other reason than that makes the debate worth watching, because he expands the range of ideas under discussion and encourages people to think for themselves. The same goes for Kucinich and Gravel on the Democratic side. The quicker you cast aside such people, the quicker you undermine our democracy.
I still think Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson would be the ideal ticket. I would support them just to get a bumper sticker.
Kim
Gonzo politics
"He would not when asked, for example, order his people to stop saying the U.S. was behind 9/11 to get us into war."
And what should he have done? He, unlike the other candidates on the stage, actually practices what he preaches rather than changing his tone based on what's convenient or going to make him poll well with his constituents. He believes people have a right to free speech, and he's not going to tell people what they can and can not say. He also did NOT say that he "abandoned" that idea (as if he ever held it), he said that he's never believed it and always repudiated it.
I also appreciated Sullivan's analysis of Paul's answer to the 9/11 question. Sullivan wrote:
"When he was asked to disown the 9/11 Truthers, he gave a revealing answer, and one that reflects on the newsletters issue. It just isn't in his nature to adopt other people's views, or to tell anyone else what to believe or what to say. He doesn't just believe in libertarianism; he lives it. This means that he doesn't have the instinct to police anyone else's views or actions within the law or the Constitution. I don't think it excuses his negligence in the past, but it does help me understand it better."
I had an identical reaction.
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 as Huck did and now gets "religion" Qs, and McCain did and gets loaded Qs as to his alleged conservatism.
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.