Lightning but No ThunderIn New Hampshire Republicans debate for a third time.
Posted Wednesday, June 6, 2007, at 2:04 AM ET
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUponOpen Mike: Once again, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee was the strongest second-tier candidate. He was amusing and thoughtful and given the premium Republicans seem to be putting on folksy Southern conservatives as a part of the Fred Thompson swoon you'd think Huckabee might get a little attention. What might win him that attention were his answers to questions about abortion and evolution. Both times he was reasoned and appealing. I believe there is a God," he said. "I believe there's a God who was active in the creation process. Now, how did he do it and when did he do it and how long did it take, I don't honestly know... and I don't think knowing that would make me a better president." When asked to name one pressing moral issue in the country, he urged those who are pro-life to demonstrate that they care about all life, from children "under a bridge or in the back seat of a car" to the elderly neglected in a nursing home, as much as they do the unborn life in the womb.
Those answers will attract social conservatives and their financial support (crucial at this stage for Huckabee) because not only will they agree with what he says, and the fact he's willing to stand up and say it, but because social conservatives will see him as an appealing representative of their views. They may not think he's going to be the next president but they might be inclined to want him in the race as an advocate.
The Slatest: Medvedev Targets Russia's "Colossal Drinking" Problem
The Perfect Gift for the Policy Wonk in Your Life
Wait, the Whig Party Is Making a Comeback?
The Copenhagen Climate Conference Is Really Freaking Out My 9-Year-Old
Is Health Care Reform Without a Public Option Better Than Nothing?
The Unspeakably Raunchy English Sex Clubs of the 18th Century
Remarks from the Fray:
There are no candidates, still having a good chance to win the Presidency, who have the guts to speak their minds, not be overly fake, "pandering" or constantly changing their positions depending upon where they are in the country.
Another problem is the use of these debates -- Republicans criticizing Democrats and vice versa. I like these debates, on principle, because they give us a look at a variety of people, one of whom will some day lead this country. However, it also allows for Hillary Clinton to say the Republicans are the ones who...blah, blah, blah and Rudy Guiliani saying the Democrats...blah, blah, blah. We need a president who is willing to work with the other party -- even if they do not agree with them.
After six years of a president who does not work well with the opposing party (and sometimes his own party), we desperately need someone to at least stick out his or her hand to the other party and say "let's work together". Naive? Yes, seemingly in Washington, but since when is trying to work together considered a bad thing? Not since before Kindergarten, at least.
--Histerical
(To reply, click here.)
Right now, [shouldn't] the best ideas for getting out of Iraq should be the criteria? A lot of the Republican candidates didn't even want to get out and the Democrats didn't have a good idea how to do it.
If I hear one of these candidates come out and say he wants to fix the mess of a Constitution and the government that is now in Iraq and leave it as ONE country, so that we can pull out without leaving as preading cancer behind, I think he gets my vote.
So far, none of them have said that. They keep talking about fixing the security forces in Iraq, but not fixing the mess of a government or the structure that both the government and the security forces are built on.
--LT-7
(To reply, click here.)
(6/7)