September 5, 2007

Debate tonight.

I'm actually noticing in time to watch. These things are so elusive. And it was not easy to figure out the time and channel. But I have ascertained that it is on FoxNews at 9 ET. So maybe I'll be simulblogging (AKA "liveblogging"). Haven't done that in a while. Fred won't be on. He's oozing into the competition via Leno later tonight. How absurd.

9:02. Wow. I haven't done this in so long! Don't expect me to be as detailed as in the past. This will be done in real time and will contain... whatever the hell I'm in the mood to type.

9:04. The first question is about Fred Thompson. Was he smarter than you guys? Brit Hume asks. You've been dragging yourselves around on the campaign, and this guy comes waltzing up now and gets to be in second place. Brit is basically taunting them, but he's giving them a chance to take a shot at Fred. They get to portray themselves as hardworking, close to the people, and generous about accepting a new competitor. Giuliani is going for a balder look. And, going last, he also uses his time to take a shot at the Democrats: You have 3 leading Democratic candidates, none of whom have run a city, a state, or a business.

9:13. Immigration. Huckabee is pushed on his accusation that opposition to immigrants is, to some extent, racist. He acknowledges that statement and says: "If people are looking for a President with a mean spirit, I'm not their guy." After Huckabee, Ron Paul yells about "the rule. of. law." I'm appreciating Huckabee's mildness.

9:25. We've got to rebuild the family, says Sam Brownback. In fact, he says "family" about 20 times. Oh, they seem to be talking about Larry Craig. "When our guys have problems like this, they leave," says.... hmmm.... not sure who that is. [ADDED: It's Hunter. I'll never memorize his face.]

9:28. Abortion is "without question the taking of a human life," says Mitt Romney, but the rights of women matter too. Huckabee is invited to explain what Romney just said. He declines and speaks (mildly but firmly) about his state's human life amendment.

9:33. I can't stand Ron Paul. He's cantankerous. Anyway, before RP got cantankerous, Giuliani did a nice job of claiming superheroic powers to stop crime. They cut away to a restaurant to take statements from regular citizens. That's supposed to add texture to this scintillating event, apparently. But we're on our way to a long commercial break, so go get something to eat, because all you'll be missing is Sam Brownback going on about the decline of the family again.

9:42. Mitt dithers about Iraq, and McCain follows on with "The surge is working. The surge is working." He makes a strong statement on Iraq and gets good applause. Chris Wallace asks Ron Paul about the bloodbath that would follow the withdrawal of troops. RP says those who are saying "bloodbath" are the same people who said all sorts of other wrong things about the Middle East. We ought to get out and mind our own business. Big cheers from the audience. We are invaders, violators of international law.

9:58. A man in the diner addresses Mitt Romney. How dare he compare his sons' working on the campaign to men serving in the war? Romney blandly says there's no comparison and moves on to his more general policy statement on the war. Stylistically, Romney is limited. He didn't reach out to that man. He just disqualified what the man said.

10:05. Giuliani again. Haven't seen much of him. He's asked about Guantanemo. He says we can't close it, because there is nowhere to send those detainees. No one will take them.

10:21. A polisci major in the restaurant wants to know what Guiliani thinks about "family values." He asks us to look at his real, public accomplishments, not his private life. He goes back to the subject of managing New York City.

10:27. Ron Paul is raving again. The subject is Iran. He seems to think the President has no power but must go asking Congress whether there's a threat to the United States. Tancredo: "We don't immediately use the button." Man, he sounds nervous. "Political correctness is going to kill us all." He really seems to be struggling. I feel a little bad for him. Not that bad though. Why is he wasting our time? Now, Huckabee is being very sensible -- and general -- about how seriously he would take the job of President. Well, I should think so. But he sounds like a giant among men after Paul and Tancredo. Giuliani invokes Reagan: He won the Cold War without firing a shot, but he aimed "like a thousand" missiles at the them. McCain has the last word.

10:39. Ah, it's over.

10:40. Here's what I think. Get Hunter, Paul, Tancredo, and Brownback out of there. Huckabee, McCain, and Giuliani are serious and have a lot to say. Sit them down at a table and let them talk to each other. With Fred. Gotta bring Fred in too now. Let's go into a new stage of the campaign. It's really wearing to sit through Paul's ravings and Tancredo's fumblings and Hunter's blahness and Brownback's family, family, family. Enough.

IN THE COMMENTS: It's pointed out that I left Mitt Romney out in that 10:40 final comment. I guess that means something...

80 comments:

Revenant said...

I think skipping the debate and appearing on Leno is a smart move on Thompson's part.

A lot more people probably watch Leno than are going to watch yet another Republican political debate. On top of that, this way Thompson's first official appearance as a candidate won't involve him immediately getting gang-tackled by a half-dozen rival candidates. While the other Republican hopefuls are picking each other apart, Thompson can speak unopposed.

I also think that standing apart from the other candidates helps Thompson sell himself as different from the rest -- and it makes him look like a party outsider, which can only HELP him in the current political environment. Both Republican voters and the electorate as a whole are pretty fed up with the Republican establishment. None of the leading candidates are Republican leaders, but their long-standing status as candidates gives them more of an "official Republican" vibe than Thompson will have.

titus20 said...

Giulani, who I happen to like, looks kind of ugly-physically tonight.

Romney on the other hand smarmy as usual.

titus20 said...

Duncan Hunter built the fence, who knew-it's his fence.

titus20 said...

Speaking of smarmy Carl Cameron is disgusting.

Wasn't his wife working on the Bush campaign last year?

Go Haverhill, MA-it's a shithole. I used to live in Cambridge. Cop is kind of hot though-nice guns.

titus20 said...

Look Althouse I am liveblogging too, hee hee.

titus20 said...

Romney is getting tough-he's awful.

Family Schmaly

titus20 said...

I hate Duncan Hunter

Palladian said...

The word "family" is always used by politicians to mean "WE HATE GAYS".

titus20 said...

family values is totally code words for I hate gays.

Palladian said...

...which is sad. It besmirches a positive word with a nasty, negative connotation. I support the nuclear family, where applicable. Talking about "family values" is a way for politicians to talk a lot without having to say anything at all.

titus20 said...

Go New Hampshire, love the "live free or die" motto.

If this was in South Carolina they crowd would go crazy loving the gay amendmant.

Palladian said...

New Hampshire is my favorite state, aesthetically as well as politically.

It's almost touching that people think Ron Paul has a snowball's chance in hell..

Paddy O. said...

titus20, I totally agree with you about Duncan Hunter.

Thompson is, I think, going to be playing the West Coast offense, following the Arnold model.

The establishment only gets in the way.

titus20 said...

Those blonde dyed old republican biddies behind the commentators are horrible.

titus20 said...

Whoooooo Romney just got served.

B said...

It is the height of hypocrisy for members of the media to take every opportunity to slam Thompson for not appearing at the "substantive" Republican debate, when not one member of that media is going to seriously consider personally voting for him.

titus20 said...

Enough Huckbee's stories-they are getting old and cheesy. Just answer the dam question without some sappy story about what mama told him. You are not that funny and you don't look serious when you constantly have to preface ever answer with some lame story.

MadisonMan said...

not one member of that media is going to seriously consider personally voting for him.

Can you vote for someone without personally voting for them?

Should I be sorry that I'm working on class notes instead of watching this debate?

Note to Senator Brownback: My family isn't broken. Maybe you should mend Senator Craig's.

B said...

We need a President who's grammatically proficient and stuff.

LonewackoDotCom said...

After Huckabee, Ron Paul yells about "the rule. of. law." I'm appreciating Huckabee's mildness... Why is [Tancredo] wasting our time? Now, Huckabee is being very sensible -- and general -- about how seriously he would take the job of President. Well, I should think so. But he sounds like a giant among men after Paul and Tancredo.

I'm sure Althouse isn't as much of an airhead as those statements or her past posts would suggest. However, she might want to do some research into what's going on in the world and current political matters, such as the points that RP raises and TT's opposition to massive illegal activity, something that Huckabee has supported in the past.

Here's a 30-second video about Huckabee; I'm sure our host won't be able to understand why his actions would be an issue, but hopefully others will take the time to do a bit of research.

Luckyoldson said...

Hillary will run these idiots right into the ground.

Intellect will win out.

Frieda said...

Romney reminds me of Bill Clinton...too sleek!

But overall, Republicans debate better than Democrats. There is more "gravitas" in today's stage than Demarcates. Little more depth and substance than Democrats shallow answers

titus20 said...

The republicans made frieda wet

MadisonMan said...

We need a President who's grammatically proficient and stuff.

Boy ain't that the truth. I'd like to listen to a President sell a policy or an action without cringing at his (or her) syntax and horrid speaking voice.

Palladian said...

"We need a President who's grammatically proficient and stuff.

Boy ain't that the truth. "

Ain't?

Ann Althouse said...

"Hillary will run these idiots right into the ground. Intellect will win out."

Probably, but we watched Al Gore lose all the debates to George Bush back in 2000. And it won't be Hillary against all these guys. It will be Hillary against one of them. Or Fred.

PatCA said...

I thought for an early debate it was good. At least they talked about the war and immigration--things the voters are interested in. They even spoke the terror that dare not speak its name, "Islamic" terrorism.

I enjoyed the ranting! Let's see what these guys are all about. Eventually we will get down to the true candidates. But kudos to Fox, much better than the Democrats' infomercial.

Ruth Anne Adams said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Too many jims said...

Get Hunter, Paul, Tancredo, and Brownback out of there. Huckabee, McCain, and Giuliani are serious and have a lot to say.

Which group does Romney fall into or did I miss something.

James M said...

10:40. Here's what I think. Get Hunter, Paul, Tancredo, and Brownback out of there. Huckabee, McCain, and Giuliani are serious and have a lot to say. Sit them down at a table and let them talk to each other. With Fred. Gotta bring Fred in too now. Let's go into a new stage of the campaign. It's really wearing to sit through Paul's ravings and Tancredo's fumblings and Hunter's blahness and Brownback's family, family, family. Enough.

What to do with Mitt?

cRift said...

Our host's omission pretty much sums what Mitt did for his campaign tonight. He hasn't a chance after tonight's performance.

zzRon said...

I agree with what Revenant said in the opening comment.


Palladian said..."The word "family" is always used by politicians to mean "WE HATE GAYS". "

I think maybe your closeted "staight-aphobia" has influenced your reasoning here. IMO, for the most part, "family values" has little or nothing to do with gays and gay rights when used in the modern day political context. Rightfully or wrongfully, whenever a politician mentions the word "family", I dont believe you guys even fit into the equation most of the time... and I seriously doubt that any of them (as pathetic as they may be)actually HATE gays. Of course though, I could be wrong. It certainly wouldnt be the first time.

Luckyoldson said...

Ann,
You think Fred is even half as smart as Hillary?

Get real.

*And why do you persist in representing yourself as an Independent?

I find that rather gutless.

downtownlad said...

Actually zzRon, I think for the first time in my life I agree with Palladian.

"Family Values" does indeed mean "We hate Gays".

It's a code word. All of the wingers know what it means. And all of TEH GAYS know what it means.

Luckyoldson said...

Over a half an hour into the "masturbate"...before the first Iraqi question???

Doe anybody HERE remember..IRAQ??

HELLOOOOOO!!!

Simon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mutaman said...

Was there anybody in that audience under eighty?

Paddy O. said...

Family values is a code word. It means whatever you personally care about.

If you're gay it means gay issues. If you don't like television it means censorship. If you're poor it means getting a decent paycheck. If you have school age kids it means safe and decent schools.

That's why it's a meaningless term. Everyone can applaud or get outraged behind it because they give it their own meaning. And we're all right! And we know we're right because who really cares about those other issues? That's not what we're facing.

It's a phrase that highlights our pet issue and puts a little more fight into it.

cRift said...

Fred just said he's running. I doubt he'll win the nomination. If he does, he'll lose.

Luckyoldson said...

THIS IS FOR FEN:

In Oct. 2004, President Bush finally admitted that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction: “Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there.”

Yet according to former White House chief of staff Andy Card, this statement was just rhetoric. In his new book on Bush, Robert Draper writes that the President continued to privately insist through April 2006 that Saddam had possessed weapons of mass destruction:

Bush, for his part, was not disposed to second-guessing. Througout 2006, he read historical texts relating to Lincoln, Churchill, and Truman - three wartime leaders, the latter two of whom left office to something less than public acclaim. History would acquit him, too. Bush was confident of that, and of something else as well. Though it was not the sort of thing one could say publicly anymore, the president still believed that Saddam had possessed weapons of mass destruction.

He repeated this conviction to Andy Card all the way up until Card’s departure in April 2006, almost exactly three years after the Coalition had begun its fruitless search for WMDs. [p. 388]

zzRon said...

Paddy O, concerning "family values" said ....."That's why it's a meaningless term"

Thank you. You expressed my point much better than I did.

Luckyoldson said...

Paddy,
So you think Craig's "family values" are intact...while he's trolling airport bathrooms?

downtownlad said...

Family values means "married with kids" and if you don't conform to that kind of family, well guess what - you're not a "real" family. You're a threat.

It all started with Dan Quayle and Murphy Brown.

I never heard "family values" mentioned prior to that.

Luckyoldson said...

Try to imagine G.W. Bush and Dan Quayle debating....or spelling.

Jeff said...

""Family Values" does indeed mean "We hate Gays"."

Funny, I always thought it meant "fewer illegitimate children." You know, the lack of father figures that has utterly devastated black communities over the past thirty years?

But then again, I've found that rich, white, urbanite, gays are the most arrogantly racist people on earth. Oh, they'll never directly say anything against a minority, but, siiiiiigh, what can you really expect from those people?

zzRon said...

DTL said....."Actually zzRon, I think for the first time in my life I agree with Palladian."


So, you actually believe that Republican candidates who speak of "family values" HATE you? Jeese, what a mess this country is in. Still though, it certainly is nice to know that I was the one who brought you and Palladian together ;-).

Luckyoldson said...

Jeff,
How long have you been homophobic?

Or, hey...are you a closet gay?

Sloanasaurus said...

Lucky, how long have you hated the troops?

Luckyoldson said...

Sloan,
You're like a little boy.

Want a spanking?

Luckyoldson said...

Sloan,
Here's what I care about:

3,742 Dead
27,767 Wounded

You can suck on Bush all you want, but it won't change the facts or the loss of life.

You're just another gutless prick who likes to talk the talk but has never in his life had to walk the walk.

I think you're a pussy.

Brian said...

Fred Thompson wins. The only people who think it is too late for him are the people who care too much about this nonsense.

And he is going to win the whole thing.

Luckyoldson said...

Brian,
I think I saw that episode...but...it was just a T.V. show.

titus20 said...

family values means hate the gays-thats ok we get the code.

Family values mean mommy and daddy and child and picket fence in a gated and guarded community (I got that from Tracey Ullman).

Did anyone else notice the blonde dyed republican bitches in the front row? Yeesh, you know they all live in gated and guarded communities. How frickin ugly were they? I bet their middle names are "birdie".

titus20 said...

Was there anyone in color anywhere near that stage or in that "coffee shop". Southern New Hampshire, where the debate was is fairly diverse, because it is near evil Massachusetts but all I saw was the glare of white everywhere. Some of the flatlanders from Mass moved up there because they can get a cheaper house and still commute to evil Boston which is another fabulous city that I just absolutely love, love girls. Also, what's not to love about Cambridge? How cool is Cambridge? Harvard, Porter, Kendall, Inman Square-all those biotech/high tech honeys making our computers run faster and finding new life saving drugs for rare genetic diseases. Oh I am sorry I drifted off to my college days. Massachusetts is evil, bad healthcare, bad education, bad democrats, bad Massachusetts.

Lowest divorce in the country in that Massachusetts though imagine that? Still bad, liberal Massachusetts. Most urban state in the union, bunch of mo's.

titus20 said...

Mitt Romney is clueless about anything having to do with foreign policy. His answers regarding Iraq, Iran, Gitmo, etc were sad. He needs to study up.

Also, he has used the John Edwards haircut line way too many lines. He is poll tested and way to plastic. He is gross and I voted for him when I lived in Mass but he was a completely different person and that was only 4 years ago. He is got to be the least genuine of the politicians. Granted they are all fake but he is the queen of fake.

Althouse is right though the American public don't really care about intellect all they care about is who they can have a beer with so I guess Fred will be our next president. The upside to this is we get to see his wifes tits quite a bit.

titus20 said...

Luciano Pavorotti died.

Daryl said...

It's Hunter. I'll never memorize his face.

Rep. Hunter is the C+ candidate. He's boring and average and completely lacks star power and recognition.

But's he's also a solid conservative, 100% red meat for the base kind of guy, without going off onto long, boring speeches about the importance of "family" or this or that. Family is important--he knows it, you know it, he doesn't need to drone on about it or make it his trademark. He doesn't really have a trademark. The Republican base is ready to love him, but first they need to learn who he is, and that's not going to happen in this election cycle.

If the GOP holds on to the presidency (I give 50/50 odds), and the Pres. (who will NOT be Hunter) puts Hunter in his cabinet, that would put Rep. Hunter within striking distance of the White House in 2016.

titus20 said...

daryl does hunter in the bathroom with larry craig wanking in the far stall.

Eli Blake said...

Daryl:

You're forgetting something in your suggestions about Hunter. So is the GOP, in general (with a few exceptions like President Bush and Congressman Jeff Flake).

Last year the GOP made a lot of noise with immigrant-bashing.

It got them what? Nothing. There was in fact, very little in the way of demographic change from 2004 (for the most part people who voted Republican still voted Republican and people who voted Democratic still voted Democratic.) But one group shifted very sharply: Hispanics, who had gone 40% for President Bush, went only half that much for the GOP last year (in fact, if it weren't for Cubans, the Republican showing among Hispanics would be not much better than it is among African-Americans.) And, this is a family values issue-- many families have members on both sides of the border, and including a lot of them who are in fact American citizens. Therefore, the record (just here in Arizona alone) is this: Six term incumbent J.D. Hayworth, who staked it all on an unyielding stance on immigration(even wrote a book about it): lost! Hard liner Randy Graf, running for an open seat that would otherwise be a toss-up: lost! Six Republicans in the legislature, including at least a couple who were outspoken on immigration: lost! And who changed and voted against them? That's right, it was Hispanics. One exit poll made it quite plain that Hayworth's 6000 vote margin of defeat was provided by the particular subcategory of people who had voted for him in 2004 but against him in 2006. And many, many of them were Hispanics.

Daryl said...

Eli, I agree that immigrant-bashing is a dead end.

But expressing serious, thoughtful, not-racist concerns about immigration is not.

Last year was a bad year for Republicans. There was an unpopular war (it's much more popular today), a Republican Pres., and Republicans had done very well in three contests prior in a row (2000, 2002, 2004). Losing was not tremendously surprising.

Further, a lot of Mexican-Americans who have been here for more than 1 generation aren't wild about illegal immigration, either. The worst thing Republicans can do is shameless pandering, by demagoguing on either side of this issue. If they play it straight, and express their concerns in a decent but firm manner, they should come out alright. There are legitimate reasons to want to curtail illegal immigration.

Daryl said...

Titus20, I could never have sex with Rep. Hunter.

We're both always on top. We insist. Because we're real men, not fags like you.

Revenant said...

The word "family" is always used by politicians to mean "WE HATE GAYS".

That certainly casts Hillary's repeated use of the word in a new light...

Seriously, though, "family" is a code word used by both parties to refer to whatever social engineering they currently support. For social conservatives these days that means hostility to gay marriage and maybe abortion, for liberals it means support for socialized medicine and more money for public schools.

Revenant said...

It all started with Dan Quayle and Murphy Brown.

There were two amusing things about that incident.

The first, which is only slightly amusing, is that Candice Bergen later conceded that she'd actually agreed with Quayle's point. That's not all that surprising, since she didn't actually write the scripts and most women strongly agree that children need a father too.

The more amusing point is that after all the endless speeches about how Alternative Family Structures Were Just as Legitimate... the kid promptly vanished from the show, only reappearing to give Brown someone to empathize with during the cancer plotline. So in the end, even the show itself realized that single motherhood didn't really have much audience appeal.

Revenant said...

Six term incumbent J.D. Hayworth, who staked it all on an unyielding stance on immigration(even wrote a book about it): lost! Hard liner Randy Graf, running for an open seat that would otherwise be a toss-up: lost!

Here in California, the Democratic candidate running to replace the disgraced (and imprisoned) "Duke" Cunningham saw her poll numbers disintegrate when she revealed herself to be soft on illegal immigration. The kicker was getting caught on videotape telling a Hispanic audience that you don't need to be a citizen to vote (which admitted is the sad reality here in California).

It cuts both ways. If you're in a heavily-Hispanic district, you need to kiss the ass of the illegal immigrant lobby. If you're in one of the vast majority of Congressional districts with no significant presence of legal Hispanic residents, on the other hand, odds are that the voters are hostile to illegal immigration and don't give a shit if the guy wading across the Rio Grande has relatives in El Paso or not.

That's what happened in Cunningham's district -- which has a lot of immigrants in it, too. Legal ones, like Filipino veterans and Vietnamese refugees. If you want to find someone who REALLY hates illegal immigrants, just talk to a legal one. Be prepared for a long rant.

JohnG said...

Yeah, RP is a nutty old coot. However, I think he's serving a useful function still. First, we get to see the other candidates in a full-on confrontational situation with someone not-complelety-sane, but who's positions still seem to resonate with many in the audience. Who has the balls, with half the auditorium cheering madly, to stick to their guns and say "hell no!"? I think Huckabee best moment came during his one-on-one against RP. Second, there probably needs to be an idealogical provocateur in the mix. Without that, they'll just sit around in their comfort zones and appear weak and dull.

EnigmatiCore said...

"Get Hunter, Paul, Tancredo, and Brownback out of there. Huckabee, McCain, and Giuliani are serious and have a lot to say."

Interesting-- you want Huckabee at that table, but not Romney?

Can't say I blame you. There is something about Romney that strikes me as too crafted for me to really warm up to. But I have listened to Huck over the past few months, and he does to me what Edwards does to me-- makes me pretty sure I would vote the other way if he is the candidate.

"With Fred. Gotta bring Fred in too now."

On the GOP side, all I want to see now is Fred and Rudy. I haven't made up my mind between them.

Justin said...

Luckyoldson said...

Jeff,
How long have you been homophobic?

Or, hey...are you a closet gay?


He can't be more homophobic than you. How long have you been homophobic?

Simon said...

Eli, the GOP is not anti-immigrant, with the exception of a few yahoos on the sidelines. It is opposed to illegal immigration, and if some immigrants have a hard time comprehending the difference, that indicates that they've not lived up to their obligations to learn and understand American civics, culture and language.

Fen said...

Ah no. For the Left, our opposition to illegal immigration is "code' for "we hate hispanics", same way family values is code for "we hate Gays".

I tell you, if there wasn't homophobia, the Left would invent it to maintain their status as oppressed victims...

Fen said...

Lucky: THIS IS FOR FEN:

Whats your point? Do I need to list [again] all the Dems, including Clinton, who believe Saddam has WMDs?

And you still haven't responded to my earlier points: how thorough can an insepctions regime be that misses 500 arty shells of sarin and nerve gas? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Saddam has a WMD program. He may has deep-sixed it once invasion was immeninent, but even your own people maintain that Saddam would have restarted hos WMD programs once sanctions were lifted. We did the right thing by taking him down.

Naturally, you oppose the effort. Not because you give a damn about troops killed and wounded, but because the mission is cutting into your "free" health care and other parsitic perks. Who cares if 25 million arabs live under tyranny - Lucky wants his cheap oil economy and free drugs NOW. Parasite.

hdhouse said...

wow. 7 dwarfs. all playing the role of either sleepy or dopey.

Simon said...

Fen -
"I tell you, if there wasn't homophobia, the Left would invent it to maintain their status as oppressed victims..."

we have a college here in town and their student newspaper started running an opinion column titled "Alone on the Left" this year. This is in a town with a Democratic mayor, a Democratic majority on the city council, a Democratic state representative and state senator (the Democrats also have a majority in one half of the legislature), a Democratic Congressman and one U.S. Senator of two is a Democrat; while we're at it, she's from Ohio, and thus goes home to a Democratic Governor and one U.S. Senator of two is a Democrat. But don't you see, Fen? She's alone on the left.

Victimhood and a (sincerely-held) perception of being besieged (cf.Levinson, Confrontation, Fidelity, Transformation: the 'Fundamentalist' Judicial Persona of Antonin Scalia, 26 Pace L. Rev. 445, 451 (2006) (noting that "fundamentalists relish their place at the margins and perceive themselves as 'under siege ... even persecuted'") is their stock in trade.

Too many jims said...

Simon said...
the GOP is not anti-immigrant, with the exception of a few yahoos on the sidelines. It is opposed to illegal immigration, and if some immigrants have a hard time comprehending the difference, that indicates that they've not lived up to their obligations to learn and understand American civics, culture and language.


That is one explanation. Another is that Republicans don't do a good enough job communicating what they are for and against. It might not be helpful to the distinction when you have a candidate say "Miami is a Third World Country" and another suggest that immigrants from Cuba might be smuggling in a suitcase bomb (setting aside for the moment the confusing {to me at least} status of legal/illegal immigrants from Cuba) rather than fleeing an oppressive regime.

Assuming that some legal immigrants are put off by this type of rhetoric it probably exacerbates it further to say to them: "The reason you misunderstand this is because you have failed in your duties as a citizen."

NSC said...

I love Ann's blog but I cannot believe you people had nothing better to do than last night than comment and re-comment about this debate.

BTW, "I'm with Fred."

Roger said...

Someone actually watched the debate? I have sworn off all "debates" which, in reality, are nothing more than a reiteration of talking points and gotchas. As HD points out, lets clear out the deadwood among both Rs and Ds and get down to the principals. I think Thompson had it right: nobody watches debates except the political junkies.

BJK said...

Romney easily had the worst night of the major candidates. He didn't really have any response to Mr. Wallace's "You couldn't even find the illegal immigrants cutting your front lawn" comment-wrapped-in-a-question. His good answers sounded rehearsed, and the one off-the-cuff response came off as butchered ("Broken Pottery" ... he recognized the Huckabee anecdote as a repackaging of the John Kerry "Pottery Barn Rule" -- the last thing I expected to hear out of a candidate in this forum -- but couldn't get the words out).

Huckabee got the chance to tee off on Ron Paul, and had the best scripted joke for the Fred Thompson question (I do think he has a sense of humor...or at least has advisors who do). The rest of his content will need some refining before he makes it to the top tier.

Rudy was also the recipient of tough questions. I think he answered them better than Mitt, but that immigration quote isn't going to go away any time soon.

Of the candidates that appeared at the debate, I think McCain had the best night. The crosshairs weren't on him, as his position in the polls don't justify negative treatment. Most of the candidates were actually complementary of the consistency of his positions and his experience. The "Maverick Senator" is gradually making himself into a strong VP candidate for someone.

Barry Kearns said...

As others have alluded to, I think it's very telling that Ann's closing 10:40 comment didn't include Mitt.

He's damaged himself so much that he's becoming a walking "blind spot".

Cedarford said...

9:58. A man in the diner addresses Mitt Romney. How dare he compare his sons' working on the campaign to men serving in the war? Romney blandly says there's no comparison and moves on to his more general policy statement on the war. Stylistically, Romney is limited. He didn't reach out to that man. He just disqualified what the man said.

I for one am getting mighty sick of these self-righteous assholes that don Full Frontal Victimhood and dispute any policy with allusions to no matter if a policy is working or not A Family Is Hurting! Made More Sacrifices!

Therefore, the policy is negated because No One Has the Moral Authority to Dare Tell It To the Families!

Most Americans are proud of what their sons and daughters are doing, and the sons and daughters themselves...Romney is as proud of his kids lives as Bill and Hillary are of non-combatant Chelsea. And the 40 million other military-age people not serving in the military but amking significant life accomplishments in other ways.

But what we are hearing now from the Left and Right are those accomplishments are nothing:

Go tell it to the Troops!! Tell it to their Families!

Anyone who doesn't want more mileage limits on cars ought to "tell the trapped coal miner's
families why!!"

My nephew was in Ecuador recently, doing work on retaining wall systems to stop mudslides, to save lives.

He actually got some self righteous snot reprimanding him for "Doing nothing for the Katrina victims and their families!". Helping Ecuadorans, somehow, has become a zero-sum game..."Tell it to the homeless black families of NOLA about your Christian efforts for Ecuadorans! I'm sure they will approve!"

This moral blackmail system asserts that certain subjects only should be focused on exclusively by people or political candidates. That 99% of Americans should cower and grovel to the wishes of a self-annoited few who claim the moral supremacy of themselves, or as unasked "Victim Advocates" of the other "Victim Families".

So far, no one in the media or politics has had the balls to lash out at these transperent moral blackmailers. For now, they conclude it is safer to pander to them.

Still, at a more local level, people are showing they are sick of it. We had a budget fight with some woman "demanding!!" a bigger budget for a town center because she was black and a victim all her life and a breast cancer survivor and anyone who objected to higher taxes was heartless and she "demanded!!" they apologize to nay victim families.
The general response was to politely call her an asshole and her victimhood and "tell it to the families!!" schtick was lame...

There needs to be a little more vigorous effort to tell off or at least laugh at these preening hairshirters who try and guilt trip or blackmail others with insipid assertions that no one should be happy while AIDs patients die everyday. Or self-righteous antiwar assholes that denigrate the fact of working hard on a campaign is something any young man should be ashamed of when they should be either opposing the war in Iraq or fighting there. Or "hero" cops or Vets that assert that only they through their "collective suffering" have the right to comment on criminal justice matters or national security.

Go away, moral blackmailers. And "Victim Families" or the self-annointed "spokespeople"....Remember you have a short shelf life and making a career out of your victimhood and asserting it gives you special privileges gets old, fast!

Luckyoldson said...

According to the Sydney Morning Herald of Australia, the president gave a more-to-the-point assessment to Australia Deputy Prime Minister Mark Vaile.

"We're kicking ass," Bush said to Vaile Tuesday, according the Herald, after the deputy prime minister inquired about his trip to Iraq.

tvoh said...

I feel sorry for anyone who thinks there is anything serious about Huck.

"Congressman, we are one nation. We can’t be divided. We have to be one nation under God. That means if we make a mistake, we make it as a single country, the United States of America, not the divided states of America"

One is reminded of Chesterton's quip:

"My country, right or wrong," is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, "My mother, drunk or sober."

Now the former governor does not look like the type who comes from an intemperate family and I would never suggest that his mom ever even drank let alone to excess. Still, we can note that if she were to have ever had, say, ten manhattans of an afternoon, Mike would match her out of loyalty.