Jonathan Martin, blogging the Republican debate.
Sorry not to liveblog. I forgot it was on, but, watching from the midpoint, I was struck by how lively — and testy — it was.
On to the Democratic Debate.
ADDED: Hillary sounds terrible — saying "uh" and "you know" a lot and haranguing in a yelly voice. Meanwhile, Edwards and Obama are keeping their temper and playing super-nice. Richardson... well, why is he there, getting the same amount of time? He just keeps trying to insert info from his résumé. ("Is experience a leper?")
MORE: Will any of them admit the surge is a success? No. Obama thinks any improvements are due to the election of Democrats in 2006 (and the consequent threat that American troops would leave).
AND: "Well, that hurts my feelings." Funny answer by Hillary to the ridiculous question that was nothing more than an assertion that people don't like her.
BY THE WAY: I loved the format tonight.
५ जानेवारी, २००८
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
६८ टिप्पण्या:
I don't think the other Republican candidates hate Mitt, they just realize that he is their most formidable competition.
Tis much better to blog about testy Republicans than about Republican testes, I always say.
dbp-- more like the most vulnerable competition who has sufficient support to make it worthwhile to try to peel off.
"more like the most vulnerable competition who has sufficient support to make it worthwhile to try to peel off."
I agree.
For social conservatives who like Huck, I would think Mitt would be choice # 2. For Rudy, Mitt is the only other one with executive experience. For McCain, Mitt would be the main competition for "establishment figure" etc. The analogy runs out with Fred--maybe little bits of all the above...
BTW, Hillary knows how to make change. I mean she really does.
So, if you need 4 quarters for a dollar you know where to go.
No, she'll give you three.
She needs to take the other from you for the public good.
Why is Richardson at the debate?
I thought he was dead or hiding in Mexico.
Obama is impressive. And I'm a Conservative.
Obama and Edwards are clearly tag-teaming.
And the shill Hillary is making its appearance.
When Bill would be cornered, he'd get angry and he would somehow make people go "hell, I'd be angry too" and they would rally to him.
Not sure what anyone else is thinking, but the angry Hillary makes me want to change back to the football game.
But since I don't like how that is going, I'm damned if I do, damned if I don't.
Hillary looks nice in green.
Anyone else notice her try to triangulate a fight between Edwards and Obama on the "change" issue only to have it backfire when both of them went after her instead?
I'm impressed at how well moderated and adult the debate is. No talking snowmen, no songs, no grandstanding Talk show hosts, no dopey "do you feel my pain" questions from the audience. And no questions on evolution, the bible or quantum physics.
Where were you before Charlie?
dbp,
I'm not sure Mitt is really the natural second choice for those people who are currently supporting other candidates. Thompson does have the dual advantage of being a solid conservative (something none of the front-runners can really lay claim to) and being personable. I think the more liberal Republicans might move from Rudy to Mitt, but I would expect Huckabee supporters to move to Thompson.
But who knows.
I'm impressed at how well moderated and adult the debate is.
I agree. Best debate format, excellent moderation.
"There is one topic peremptorily forbidden to all well-bred, to all rational mortals, namely, their distempers. If you have not slept, or if you have slept, or if you have headache, or sciatica, or leprosy, or thunder-stroke, I beseech you, by all angels, to hold your peace, and not pollute the morning.”
Ralph Waldo Emerson
I need to start a drinking game, one sip of beer every time "change" is used.
I need to start a drinking game, one sip of beer every time "change" is used.
You'll wind up in the hospital playing a game like that.
This is a first. It's tape-delayed in the west coast! The GOP debate is just about to start. There's a pre-game show on.
Does it seem as if the candidates were addressing women more than men. Since most of us men are watching the NFL playoffs, or (like me) flipping back and forth.
Maybe I missed it, but in neither debate are the candidates talking about the shaky state of the economy--dollar way down, housing in the trash, gold, oil sky high, unemployment up, market off with Barron's comparing 2008 to 1932.
Clearly, many millionaires running for high office.
Somebody—feel my pain, please!
George-- unemployment is up, but still lower than it was during 6 of 8 entire years of Clinton's presidency. And unless you are a millionare, you probably aren't about to go and buy gold.
Plus, I would imagine that millionares stand to lose an awful lot if the stock market crashes. Don't you think?
F.H.
Thanks for the concern. It it looks like they're off "change" - so our beer will last the night.
Enig--Gold performs inversely to the dollar. Worth looking into.... Tell them Ron Paul sent you...
I loved it when Richardson said he would order Musharraf to leave office asap, confirming all of Paul's worst fears about American imperialism.
l also enjoyed the many Sayd Qutb references in the GOP debate, as if one viewer in 100 has any idea who he was.
(Hint: He's not a champion Scrabble player.)
Tape-delayed blogging of the GOP debate.
Ron Paul gives an interesting advantage to the other candidates, even Huckabee. It's like George McGovern was parachuted in to play the foil. At this point, they're all addressing him as if he was a total numbskull.
Ugh, I hate it when state Governors pull the "I balanced the budget" - most State Governments *require* balanced budgets.
In any case, unless you live in Calf, the ability of a state Governor to tax and spend is very limited.
"Enig--Gold performs inversely to the dollar. Worth looking into.... Tell them Ron Paul sent you..."
Yes, of this I am aware.
First off, if you are getting your economic advice from Ron Paul, particularly on monetary policy, then you are in the land of the Lyndon LaRouchies. Get some prescription meds, and take them even though it is making some drug company executive rich.
Second, how exactly does a weak dollar (and strong gold) impact you? Assuming you are of meager or moderate means?
Fewer imports, or more expensive imports. But shouldn't you be buying American, anyway? Why are you paying for more exotic foreign goods? Meanwhile, it helps exporters. Might even mean that they have to hire more.
Basically, it is better overall for the dollar to be stronger than it is, but it is hardly a major tragedy for us when it goes through periods of weakness.
So, sorry, don't feel your pain. I don't like the high oil prices, either, but I am not liking most of the ideas I am hearing from either party on how to bring those down. And since I am looking to buy a house right now, not sell, the fact that the housing bubble is deflating a bit is good news for me. In fact, for those who are looking to become first time homeowners (not me) it is a very good time, assuming they have kept their credit rating good.
"At this point, they're all addressing him as if he was a total numbskull."
Perhaps the stupid party is trying to shake their reputation.
Obama thinks any improvements are due to the election of Democrats in 2006 (and the consequent threat that American troops would leave).
Ya know, just when Obama starts to impress me, he goes and says silly things like that. If we weren't at war with the jihadists, it would almost be funny.
Why is Richardson at the debate?
Via Instapundit: "Bill Richardson just said that terrorists have obtained nukes in Russia. Really? Isn't this like really, really, really, really big news? And bad?"
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTI1NDAxODBhZmZhZDU2ZDU0Njc3YzMyMmVhYWZlN2U=
I love this bit of spin:
and the consequent threat that American troops would leave).
Yes, the enemy will stop fighting if we threaten to leave the field.
Have these people ever even been in a fistfight?
"Ya know, just when Obama starts to impress me, he goes and says silly things like that. If we weren't at war with the jihadists, it would almost be funny."
I took that as a thinly veiled nod to moderates and independents that when Democrats say they will withdraw, they really won't-- notice that they were elected and didn't-- but instead are bluffing to get Iraq, and other nations, to respond the way we want.
It is an audacious maneuver for him to claim that is what they were doing. However, if he can frame it that way, it can turn a progressive liability into a strength-- at least in a Democratic debate.
Hillary's "Well, that hurt's my feelings" — with no laugh, only a (clearly mock) hurt frown with eyes closed — was indeed a terrific response. (That doesn't mean it wasn't programmed, though.)
But once again, Obama topped her, rose above her, effortlessly, when (without bothering to look up from his doodles on his notepad) he drolly interjected (as if he knew the camera was on him!): "You're likable enough, Hillary." (Not quite enough emphasis on the "enough" to justify putting it into italics; but yet, oh, the very formulation of the phrase emphasizes the word without any need for extra verbal emphasis. Deft.)
That was a JFK moment. He's a rock-star. (He scares the hell out of me.)
Ann said:
"Obama and Edwards are...... playing super-nice".
I suspect that is because they get it! The voters like nice!
I think we all agree fellow republicans that the republican debate was amazing and all were incredible. They made me proud to be an american.
The democrats were awful and made me not proud to be an american.
Mitt Romney was especially amazing. Love Fred, very inspiring and exciting and content wise incredible. Huck, love God, love God. Rudy, what can you say, a true conservative who will keep us safe.
And what was all the candidates republican and democrat on one stage-I don't want to see that crap. I want to see the republicans bouncing on those defeatocrats.
My personal republican favorite Tom Delay wasn't on the stage-I love him.
Did I see Denny Hastert in the audience? Another true patriot.
Don't play the "change" drinking game.
I went to a Rudy rally and did that everytime he said 9/11 and I had to have my stomach pumped.
Yes, Charlie Gibson made it. He was tough and intimate and he let them go at each other. It was the most substantive debate yet
Having seen these four debate for the first time, why would anyone vote for Hillary?
Edwards had more passion, Richardson seemed the most adult and Obama blinded everyone with his charisma.
And Hillary? Well, she has Bill and experience in making change. And she looks good in green.
" Will any of them admit the surge is a success? No."
Does anybody realize what a gigantic insult this is to our troops? How can they claim to support the troops while they pretend not to notice what all their hard and dangerous work has created?
LOL @ Stephen Green:
9:04pm Maybe it’s the vodka, but I see Vikings in a British diner, chanting, "Change, change, change, change, change, change, change!"
9:05pm "Change! Wonderful change!"
Here''s the dem debate in a nutshell
We need a change in washington and I'm the one to bring change.
No I'm the one to bring change.
I've been making changes for 35 years and am all about change.
There are two kinds of people in washington, those who try to work for the status quo and those bringing about change, and I'm all about change.
Change is good.
I'm the only one who's brought about change.
I respect all the other candidates but clearly change is where I'm' coming from and they don't' do change well.
Did I mention that I do change?
If I were any more for change, I''d be the status quo, because I'd loop back to non change.
My change is bigger than your change.
Change will you do you good.
You can't handle the change!!!!
Anyone have change of a dollar?
Totally agree with you John on the dem debate.
On the other hand the republican debate was amazing.
"Have these people ever even been in a fistfight?"
Well we all know Rudy, Mitt and Fred have. All Viet era kids who volunteered for the military and then proved their courage in combat. Their actions certainly give credibility to their hawkish philosophies. Or maybe I'm thinking of someone else.
This liberal Republican totally likes Thompson. I have since May.
He seems closest to:
"government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."
BTW I blog at a gay friendly blog (Classical Values) as well as my own.
My blog Master at Classical Values is a big Fred supporter too. In fact of the blogs I regularly visit Fred seems very popular.
If he could catch on with the general public I'd be really happy.
If the Huckster crosses the finish line first, not so much. My fall back guy is Rudy, but I could live with any one but the Huck or the Paulster. However, if he wins the nom I'd support him with this campaign slogan:
Support the Republican Socialist
I think that should help.
Let see for Paul my slogan will be.
He wants the Barbary Pirates to win
In keeping with his 18th century philosophy.
Well we all know Rudy, Mitt and Fred have. All Viet era kids who volunteered for the military and then proved their courage in combat.
Uh No. I never said anything about military experience, nice kneejerk to the Viet Nam strawman though. Too bad military service is not a prereq for office, the nation would be better for it.
What I'm asking is if any of the Dem candidates have ever been in any kind of fist-fight? Or anything similar - something ya know, that would prepare them against ignorant naive statements like this:
Obama: any improvements are due to the election of Democrats in 2006 (and the consequent threat that American troops would leave).
I thought he was kidding when he said he got his foreign policy experience in kindergarten. Now I realize what he meant...
Re: gold.
Money used to be a store of value and a medium of exchange.
Now it is only a medium of exchange. Mild inflation forces investment. Which is a good thing. It is a wasting asset in a mattress these days. AS opposed to the bad old days when economic contractions made holding on to money (taking it out of the economy) a wise move.
Paul is smart. And his policies are wise. For the 18th century.
BTW even specie backed money can give you bouts of hellish inflation. Spain from 1492 to about 1800.
"Too bad military service is not a prereq for office, the nation would be better for it."
No it wouldn't. But military service ought to be a prereq for talking tough when the lives of other people's kids are on the line.
By the way, where did Rudy get his
foreign policy experience? That day he visited the lower Eastside?
m. simon:
"This liberal Republican totally likes Thompson. I have since May.
He seems closest to:
"government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.""
Which definition of "liberal" do you mean? Because that Reagan quote is the epitome of conservatism, small-government philosophy, and its opposite is known as liberalism, but I don't think that's what you meant.
Best, most watchable debate of them all. I don't need to see another.
Obama can't live up to the excitement of Thursday night. He was okay, but kind of dull. An off-night.
Edwards clearly won the Democratic debate. His message was crystal clear. He illustrates what he means by change in a very comprehensible way. He is not my candidate, but he was the liveliest tonight.
Hillary was cute when she pouted about not being as liked as Obama. Unfortunately, I don't think she's going to become more likable as a presidential candidate by being coquettish.
Republicans: A very serious discussion. What some Dems call "the politics of fear" comes off in the debate as a sober facing of facts. In such an environment, Huckabee and Paul looked out of place. Huckabee for lack of substance, Paul for lack of intelligence. But the others all helped themselves, but only relative to Huckabee not each other. But if I had to pick one winner in the sense he always got my attention and told me something that rang a bell, it would be Rudy.
Busy night for me, but I did catch a little of the GOP debate and I liked the format very much. Let's see more of this.
When Huckabee mentioned Sayd Qutb, Rudy got a blank look on his face. I don't think he ever heard of the guy. Maybe he doesn't know as much about the jihadists as he would like us to think.
Sheesh, I hope that's not true. It's hard to believe, given that anyone serious on the relevant issues ought to be familiar with Qutb and his significance. Maybe Guiliani was just amazed that Huckabee knew about and/or brought up Qutb in the debate?
I didn't see the debate, by the way, due to a previous commitment away from the house and our lack of Tivo or etc. One advantage of the cable-news debates is that they get re-run over and again. A shame, particularly in this case, because Charlie has real talent in this type of area. I'm not surprised to read the positive feedback here at Althouse and elsewhere. I think Charlie is underrated in a number of ways, and that it's unfortunate he isn't used more in this type of context.
hdhouse to GOP:
Is this the best cheese you got?
rcocean said...
In any case, unless you live in Calf, the ability of a state Governor to tax and spend is very limited.
Wrong!!!!!! I live in Illinois and we are being taxed to death. It is that Democratic change thing. We are being nickeled and dimed to death. They even have regulatory and behavioral taxes here. It is getting like Europe.
Thanks to her language finally going completely empty, the nation now wonders if Hillary can make change.
And thanks to modern cash registers, she can still work at McDonald's in any case.
rhhardin said...
"And thanks to modern cash registers, she can still work at McDonald's in any case."
You wouldn't want her working in the kitchen.
Non-specific "change" is a lame version of, "Whatever's wrong with your life, elect me/us and we will fix it." That is actually the second verse, following close behind, "Bush and the Republicans are evil and uncaring."
It's all about emotional appeal to people who are suckers for emotional appeal and nanny-state arguments. Wait, I think they are called the Democratic Party.
Can we afford more "change" like national health insurance?
I'd prefer they fix and make solvent a current federal program like social security before they add another costly, deficit-ridden boondoggle like national hlth insurance.
Mutaman said...
"Too bad military service is not a prereq for office, the nation would be better for it."
No it wouldn't. But military service ought to be a prereq for talking tough when the lives of other people's kids are on the line.
Since anti-American Lefties like Mutaman loooove their Chickenhawk diatribe, it is fair to ask that since American kids, wives, and children as well as the young adults serving in our military Lefties keep infantilizing as "kids" - are at risk from enemy, and have been since the War of 1812 - don't we need a military.
Then if Mutaman says military service ought to be a prereq - doesn't that leave out almost all Democrats? Is it true poor Mutaman cannot support his beloved Kucinich, Dodd, Sharpton, Jesse - let alone frontrunners like Obama, Hillary!, and Slick because they all "ducked" military service.
And maybe he can explain why identity politics and "knowledge by biography" - so lacking in Democrat Presidents and so many past Dem candidates - people like Humphrey, FDR, Clinton - made them worthy.
And why the people that wrote the Constitution and put the military under civilian control neglected to add the part that the civilians in control all ought to be Vets, and ideally, combat Vets....as opposed to such military shirkers of combat as Eisenhower, Carter, Reagan, and Dubya?
One thing I detest about the "chickenhawk" argument is it is typically made by America-haters like Mutaman who never served and who actually loath the military themselves - who wouldn't be caught dead screaming Hillary or Obama are unfit to lead in a growingly dangerous world when they never "served".
Given their non-military, hate the military status, presuming to attest to the "unfitness" of Republicans to be in office unless they are former military - the anti-American's chickenhawk taunt is sincere as their white asses going after Lt. Gov Steele, Lee Elder, Clarence Thomas as "not black enough".
Six years after 9/11, candidates are citing Qutb (well, at least Republican candidates). This is a good thing. This is at least partly due to the offense versus defense position Bush takes towards terror.
I can't wait to hear Obama explain why his preemptive doctrine is not the same as Bush's, and for Hillary to explain how her policy that a state giving haven to terrorists is as responsible as the terrorist is not the same as Bush's.
Gibson just upped the stakes on the Debate Game. Who knows, by November, Hillary could be talking about Islamic radicals and Qutb as well.
Note to Rudy, if you're reading: your next commercial should be man on the street vignettes from Turkey, London, Detroit, from secular Muslims declaring their dedication to Enlightenment freedoms and asking for our support. Your voters know who the bad guys are already.
One thing I detest about the "chickenhawk" argument is it is typically made by America-haters like Mutaman who never served and who actually loath the military themselves - who wouldn't be caught dead screaming Hillary or Obama are unfit to lead in a growingly dangerous world when they never "served".
The chickenhawk argument is almost funny by now. It is one more in a string of ad hominems liberals use to change the subject when the intellectual content of their side of the argument has run dry. Because, of course, the last thing liberals would want is a bunch of generals and majors running the US government. What's funny about "chickenhawk" is its currency emerged most strongly in 2004 as a way of differentiating Kerry from not just Bush, but all Kerry's critics.
Pssst...it didn't work! You can drop it now.
What I like is that when other candidates question inconsistencies between Romney's current statements and his past statements and actions, he considers it a "personal attack." But when he points out inconsistencies in other candidates' positions, it's simply "debating the issues."
You can't have it both ways. If you want everyone to grant you great leeway in "changing your mind" on so many positions, you can't attack other people when they can say the same thing.
What I'm asking is if any of the Dem candidates have ever been in any kind of fist-fight?
Do you need to know about knife fights too?
"Do you need to know about knife fights too?"
So your saying if your in a knife fight and tell your opponent your thinking of leaving, he will stop fighting you and go away? Unlike in a fist fight?
Or is this knowledge only a military combat veteran would know?
So your saying if your in a knife fight and tell your opponent your thinking of leaving, he will stop fighting you and go away?
Outstanding!
Mutaman: But military service ought to be a prereq for talking tough when the lives of other people's kids are on the line.
Let me guess: you're anti-war but don't have the balls to risk your own life [like with a hunger strike on the steps of Congress], lecturing us about the "hypocrisy" of chickenhawks?
Does it hurt when you do that?
C4: One thing I detest about the "chickenhawk" argument is it is typically made by America-haters like Mutaman who never served and who actually loath the military themselves
Worse, its about weasels like Mutaman trying to browbeat those who support the troops/mission into shutting up: "you don't have the moral authority to support the war effort." Its used to shut down opposition opinion so his anti-war propganda will go unchallenged. Disgraceful.
Let me guess: you're anti-war but don't have the balls to risk your own life [like with a hunger strike on the steps of Congress], lecturing us about the "hypocrisy" of chickenhawks?
LOL! It gets better and better...
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा