Debating All Weekend LongWhile you vacation, the presidential candidates blab on stage.
Posted Monday, Aug. 6, 2007, at 8:38 AM ET
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUponThe Republicans
Mitt Romney: It worked out nicely for the former Massachusetts governor that the debate began with news that he's at the top of the polls in Iowa. He showed why. He was commanding overall and fast on his feet when defending against accusations made by Sen. Sam Brownback about his former pro-choice stances—though he may have fudged the facts in his answer. He also peppered his performance with set-piece lines about support for the troops and the American family that make the eyes roll but which stir GOP audiences. He both distanced himself from President Bush and praised him without looking insincere. His most effective jab at Barack Obama's foreign-policy positions topped the evening news wrap-up of the debate and will be at the top of all the cable networks sound-bite clips.
Rudy Giuliani: He should be considered the winner if for no other reason than he had the hardest external challenges. Fogged in Saturday night, he arrived in Iowa Sunday morning not long before he had to take the stage. He stuck to his script, successfully managing the social issues where he differs from the party base and taking every chance he could to talk about terrorism. He appeared at his most winning when talking about the bridge disaster in Minneapolis. He referred to his experience in New York and offered lots of crunchy facts, which not only reminded people of his track record but also highlighted his larger philosophical point about increasing government competence without hurting services.
Giuliani has a smartest-boy-in-the-class aspect not too different from the one that Republicans used to pound Al Gore. He loves to show off his smarts, dropping facts, boasting about reading the hundreds of pages in the immigration bill, and insisting that he'd not only read a book on taxation but had underlined it. But in an otherwise politically effective defense of tax cuts Sunday, he appears to have botched his facts. He claimed that when the capital gains rate was increased to 28 percent from 20 percent, revenues decreased by $45 billion. If he's talking about the 1986 increase, they didn't. Giuliani boasted, "You go back and check it," but his campaign couldn't find the supporting data. An aide says he may have misspoke, meaning instead to have said revenues decreased 44 percent. That's closer to the truth but still distorts the case by cherry-picking the data.
John McCain: His poll numbers are falling and people wonder whether he's really going to stay in the race. He gave forceful and solid answers, but he didn't change the dynamic by taking on his rivals. Given his campaign's other woes, this safe strategy seems to depend on an implosion by Romney or Giuliani who are both running pretty solid campaigns and who gave him no openings Sunday.
Everyone Else: Gov. Huckabee continues to give solid and winning answers, which might explain why he's moving up in the polls in Iowa. The coming Iowa straw poll will likely get rid of the other also-rans whose performances in the debate Sunday only reminded us why they deserve that designation.
The Least Fun Thing About Video Games: Friendly Fire
Why Is It Such a Big Deal That We Found Water on the Moon?
A Place So Beautifully Sad, It Makes Me Want To Paint
Help! I Got My Co-Worker's Sister Pregnant!
So Will Harry Reid's Health Reform Bill Ruin Medicare or Not?
The Obama Administration Is Giving This Gitmo Detainee a Raw Deal
Remarks from the Fray:
The yearlykos crowd was Edward's to lose and Hillary's to lose. Edwards was passionate but in a demagogic way that talked down to the crowd. And he was the first candidate to get aggressive and attack the others (not counting Gravel) which did not play well in this crowd. Edwards, while super bright, comes across as a preening peacock who is using the populist shtick to win the office. And his answer that he would appoint Elizabeth Edwards as his White House blogger (a non-brainer question asked of all the candidates) was sour on two counts - he used his wife inappropriately and hey don't we want to stop the nepotism now!!!!
Hillary did fine. I think she emerged as many people's second choice if not their first. She comes across as competent and knowing and her answer on the contributions side was pretty straightforward. The guy who blew that question was Edwards, who was rendered speechless by Kucinich when Kucinich asked Edwards if he would forego contributions from hedge fund managers. Hey - it was a sophisticated crowd. How can you not take money from the lobbyists but take money from the guys who hire the lobbyists?
And Obama is showing his strength day by day. He was knowledgeable, quick on his feet and had a keen sense of humor. He did not talk down to the crowd.
--ChicagoPerspective
(To reply, click here.)
The freshest voices on the Republican side are Huckabee and Paul. But people (voters) fear change, and fear the unknown as well. Thats what we could have with these two- change and unknown. Paul is fun to watch at the debates, but his positions dont seem to align with mainstream Republicans. (Although the poll of voters had Paul and Romney neck and neck, winning the FOX News channel debate a couple months back)
If your name is not Guliani or Romney, or to some extent, Thompson, (sorry Tommy, not you) there is very little chance of gaining the nomination. Thats too bad, because these candidates are not what we have been led to believe is "conservative".
If this were 2004, and Romney were named Kerry, he would have been swiftboated into "flip-flopper land" by now. Romney came off as a boor during this debate, constantly trying to respond to other candidates during their turn to speak. I agree with Dickerson, his handlers are trying to turn him into Reagan-lite. We've been there and done that too.
So I liked Huckabee, I think he has done well at every event, and continues to gain name recognition. He doesnt screw up, doesnt have a questionable background and speaks well. The name Huckabee doesn't roll off the tongue, and thats too bad. President.... Huckabee? I know a funny name is a shallow reason not to vote for someone, but there are all sorts of reasons voters use to make their decision.
Its still unclear who will emerge as the Republican nominee. Mitt Romney seems likely to be on the ticket in some capacity.
How would a Romney/McCain ticket match up to an Edwards/Obama ticket? Would it come down to who has the best hair?
--NorCal
(To reply, click here.)
(8/6)