romney

Post-Debate Analysis

Calvin Freiburger 2008, conservatism, debate, Fox News, Fred Thompson, Giuliani, GOP, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, McCain, romney
Some reactions to last night’s debate…
–
The absence of the bottom tier was refreshing (and also whipped the Paultergeists into a frenzy).
–
I think Romney, Thompson & Giuliani all had good nights, though Huckabee suffered when Mitt pinned him to the wall.
–
We all know John McCain is a genuine war hero, but he seemed to remind us of it more than usual last night. If he’s not careful, he could wind up reminding voters of John Kerry (only without the treason).
–
There’s a perception out there that moderator Chris Wallace denied Fred his full share of the airtime. I sure didn’t see it.
–
The talking point du jour has been “change” lately, and Rudy actually had the best answer to it: that change can be for better or worse, and isn’t a positive in and of itself.

Recap: Huck, Mitt & Fred

Calvin Freiburger 2008, abortion, conservatism, Fred Thompson, GOP, guns, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, Iran, romney, scandal
Looks like I spoke too soon about the potency of Mike Huckabee’s campaign—his standing has improved pretty dramatically in recent weeks. I still can’t see him winning the nomination, but I can see him further dividing the cultural Right, thereby helping Giuliani’s chances.
–
Of course, once people take notice of you, the warts get noticed too—and Huck’s got warts in spades. This Hot Air post links to a lot of the details, and there’s even reason to question his credibility on his main/only selling point, social conservatism. Most recently, Huck’s been taking flak for his foreign policy vision, which is peppered with complaints to the effect of “George Bush has been too mean,” both to the international community and to Iran (yes, that Iran).
–
Meanwhile, Mitt Romney has picked up a couple major endorsements: National Review makes a compelling argument that not only is he the best man for the job, but his nomination is necessary to keeping the Republican coalition together; and Judge Robert Bork trusts Romney to shape the Supreme Court as President. Mitt’s much-speculated-about “Faith in America” speech (transcript here, video here) was outstanding, as well. From religion’s actual role in our nation’s past to its proper role in her present, he brought these truths to the public eye with eloquence and passion.
–
It hasn’t all been clear skies for Mitt, though. Romney’s recent Meet the Press appearance highlighted his past willingness to consider a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, as well the fact that he stands by his support for an assault weapons ban and the Brady Bill.
–
On immigration, I’d be lying if I said Romney’s changes of opinion don’t give me pause, and I don’t begrudge anyone for mistrusting him. But again, there are also reasons to be wary of his opponents (check the Hot Air link above for the dirt on Huck, and my archives for Fred Thompson). Speaking of immigration, though, Romney’s not the only one who’s seen the light—here’s the “consistent conservative” arguing for a path to citizenship, every bit as recently as Mitt, if not more so.
–
As for guns, Romney is wrong. But every member of the Republican field is lacking in some way. It’s our job, then, to take a hard look at our priorities as conservatives. If gun rights are your number-one issue, then by all means, vote for Fred. I’m a full-spectrum conservative who understands and values the right to bear arms as well as the next guy. But I consider one million abortions annually a greater injustice than assault weapon bans, so the right to life takes precedence—and there (as well as marriage), Thompson is lacking. Further, as I’ve argued before, the fact that Mitt is sticking to his guns (no pun intended) seems to run counter to the idea that he’s a phony who abandons his opinions for expediency.

GOP Debate Reaction

Calvin Freiburger 2008, conservatism, debate, Duncan Hunter, Fred Thompson, Giuliani, GOP, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, Huckabee, romney, Ron Paul, Tancredo
I caught most, but not all (missed the first ten minutes or so), of tonight’s debate. A few thoughts:
–
Mitt Romney: A good performance. His gay marriage answer was OK, but I’ve heard him deliver it more eloquently. The rest of his answers came off confident and conservative, and his exuberance in response to “Can Hillary be president?” will likely go over well.
–
Rudy Giuliani: Another strong performance overall, but there was one very interesting tidbit. Hizzonor reiterated that he doesn’t support the Federal Marriage Amendment, but then said if judges did start imposing same-sex marriage on the states, he would support it. He says this has always been his stance, but I’ve never heard it before. But Rudy would never change his positions for political expediency, would he? Of course not.
–
Fred Thompson: He was awake, and actually had a bit of spark tonight. I think he represented himself well, and his answer about education was especially strong. But his spin on the Planned Parenthood lobbying story was disgraceful. First, he made a distinction between “private practice & public service.” What’s your point—as long as you vote the right way, you’re entitled to make money by helping the bad guys when you’re off the clock? No acknowledgment whatever that what he did was wrong; in fact, he dismissed the whole thing as “Planned Parenthood is now attacking me over this because I’m their worst nightmare.” As some of his thugs just helped me demonstrate, Thompson’s full of it. He should be ashamed of himself.
–
John McCain: Good (if futile) performance. I especially thought his line about seeing the letters “KGB” in Vladimir Putin’s eyes was phenomenal. But his claim to be a “consistent conservative”…consistently maverick (read: wrong) on a whole host of oft-cited issues. And his observation about the lack of a GOP majority in Congress; now why do you suppose that is, Amnesty John?
–
Sam Brownback: GONE. Good riddance.
–
Mike Huckabee: Very polished, and some good one-liners, as usual (especially about the aging hippies & drugs), but seemed to have a problem with answering questions directly.
–
Ron Paul: Still demented.
–
Duncan Hunter: Not as good as his early debates. He too had a bit of a problem with direct answers.
–
Tom Tancredo: Okay performance, and he had some good conservative reminders for the crowd. Still a waste of airtime, though, as are Hunter, Paul, Huckabee & McCain.

Around the Web

Calvin Freiburger 2008, abortion, books, Fred Thompson, Giuliani, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, Iraq, religion, romney
In his latest column, Jonah Goldberg gives the bottom-line reason why no decent or responsible person can support abortion: “I don’t see how you can be that sure, which is why I’m pro-life — not because I’m certain, but because I’m not.”
–
More good news from Iraq, but the bulk of the article is about how decreasing violence is bad for the cemetery business. Cry me a river.
–
As mayor, Rudy Giuliani formed a coalition to combat “anti-immigrant” legislation—which included George Soros, who “Hizzonor” (dopey nickname) recently lashed out at. Seems to me like a two-in-one flip-flop at least as bad, if not worse, as the charges the Rudy hacks regularly level at Mitt Romney. Ye hypocrites!
–
Speaking of the hacks, you know something’s rotten in Denmark when “Republicans” favorably cite the Associated Press.
–
The other frontrunners were unsurprisingly peeved last week when Romney claimed to be the candidate representative of the “Republican wing of the Republican Party,” and responded in kind. That’s politics. But, none of the others came close to telling the kind of lie Fred Thompson’s campaign did, by claiming Romney “ran for Senate to the left of Ted Kennedy.” The discrepancies in Romney’s record are a fair issue. This, however, is a lie – not a matter of casting facts & circumstances in a certain light. I guess ol’ Fred is OK with lying to people to win the presidency. That should give his supporters pause.
–
New, promising books: there are too many of ‘em!
–
Dinesh D’Souza (author of one of the aforementioned books) has an interesting take on miracles, science, and the lack of conflict between the two.

GOP Round 3: Full Impressions

Calvin Freiburger 2008, CNN, conservatism, debate, Duncan Hunter, Fred Thompson, Gilmore, Giuliani, GOP, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, Huckabee, McCain, romney, Ron Paul, Tancredo, Tommy Thompson
Now that I’ve had the chance to give the full Republican debate a listen, I’ve got some impressions (I’ll start with the lower tiers just for fun):
–
Ron Paul: He only seemed sane because he wasn’t asked about the war as much. But I hear Mike Gravel is looking for a running mate…
–
Tommy Thompson: Pi-ti-ful.
–
Mike Huckabee: I’ve been surprised at how well he’s carried himself, and Round 3 was no exception. Not amazing (especially when mixing up Reagan’s birthday & anniversary of death), but a good performance. Too bad it’s all for naught.
–
Sam Brownback: “Three-state political solution,” “comprehensive reform,” blah blah blah. No thanks.
–
Tom Tancredo: Blunt talk, but pretty unpolished. His biggest flaw, though, is that he doesn’t get it on Iraq. Congressman, this war is about preventing the jihadists from becoming Iraq’s dominant force, which would have disastrous ramifications beyond her borders—not merely what the Iraqis will make of our sacrifice. But he definitely had the ‘whoa’ moment of the night when he said, as President, he’d have no choice but to ask George W. Bush not to “darken the door” of his White House. No arguments here.
–
Jim Gilmore: I’m sorry, but who are you again?
–
Duncan Hunter: Another job well done. If we were to totally throw away the “who can win” factor, Hunter would be my man, hands down (if only Hunter had been the guy to trade DC for Hollywood for a few years!). But he’s gotta be in the running for VP. At 58 years old, he’d be in a pretty darn good position after 8 years of a good conservative White House. (I was disappointed that he didn’t give Scooter Libby’s plight its proper consideration, though.)
–
John McCain: I liked his answer about the disastrous alternatives to the troop surge, plus his line about making pork spenders “infamous.” Overall, McCain has managed to lock down the tone issue of his past performances—instead of angry & unhinged, he came across as passionate, confident & in control. Too bad this development comes on the heels of Amnestygate.
–
Rudy Giuliani: An interesting show. Once again his abortion answer was indefensible (I’d think long & hard about that lightning, pal), and while his immigration answer was carefully worded to sound harsh, his only beef is with identification—no concern whatsoever for the fence, for the effects of amnesty, etc. But I have to admit I was surprised at how much his answers about the war impressed me. In none of Rudy’s past speeches, TV appearances, etc., have I seen the fiery leader others are smitten with. Last night was the first time I saw a hint of man who takes this fight seriously. He also gets points for his Libby defense. So can you count me among the smitten? Not by a long shot. I still can’t respect Rudy Giuliani the man, and I still believe Rudy Giuliani the nominee will have devastating effects on the party, movement & nation. Hear me, conservatives: THIS MAN MUST BE STOPPED (by the way, did you notice my Stop Rudy sidebar?). But if worse comes to worse, what about Rudy in a general election? He’ll have to do a lot more than this to show me that his terrorism and free-market answers aren’t just a repeat of his immigration answer: all style, no substance.
–
Mitt Romney: Well done, but not without a few bumps in the road. What I liked: terror remarks, Libby answer, “I’m not going to apologize for becoming pro-life,” the perfect answer to the Mormon question, immigration sentiments, the “three-pillared stool” analogy for the Republican coalition (free markets, strong defense, & family values), and lip service to ANWR drilling. Not so hot: I bet some viewers will still be understandably-unsure how his healthcare plan differs from Hillarycare, his answer about oil company profits was unclear (I won’t contest his grasp of where they’d be best spent, but you’re not talking about government forcing them to spend their own money a certain way, are you?), and any 6-year-old could’ve told Team Romney that running Spanish ads would come back to bite ‘em before long.
–
BONUS CANDIDATE—Fred Thompson: He’s got an appealing demeanor, and I applaud his answer about Libby (even better than Rudy’s & Mitt’s). But did anyone else in the “conservative alternative” crowd notice how weak his abortion answer was? But Fred’s biggest flaw was that his sparring partner was Sean Hannity—not the ten men who, whatever else may be said of them, have dived into the fray and put their reputations on the line in three debates so far. Besides Fred’s other conservative deficiencies (McCain-Feingold, impeachment, etc.), doesn’t anyone else find his lateness in declaring just a bit smarmy? (Apparently not.)

Second GOP Debate

Calvin Freiburger 2008, conservatism, debate, Fox News, Gilmore, Giuliani, GOP, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, Huckabee, McCain, romney, Ron Paul, South Carolina, Tancredo, Tommy Thompson
UPDATE: Full video here. UPDATE 2: Is it just me, or was the subject of Iran conspicuously absent last night?
–
My random thoughts as I watch:
–
It seems Fox News is running a far-less scattered debate than the first one: Down-the-line questions focusing on the distinctions between each candidate.
–
Iraq: Tommy completely dodged the question on how he could force the democratically-elected government to adopt his proposals, instead going into his preprogrammed speech; Hunter is an impressive candidate, but his shot at the others’ lack of military experience was a low blow; Brownback’s “togetherness” angle was lame.
–
Good lines: McCain’s “I never met a drunken sailor with the imagination of the spenders in Congress,” and Huckabee’s “spending like John Edwards at a beauty salon.”
–
“Which programs would you cut?” Tommy: Incoherent.
–
Uncle Ron Paul: he’d get us all killed, but I can’t really fault his sweeping approach to cutting bureaucracy.
–
Tancredo: plenty of the Republicans we hear have themselves moved to expand government. Correct.
–
Rudy: “First of all, ‘Rudy McRomney’ wouldn’t be a bad ticket.” OK, not a bad line. Still doesn’t change the lameness of his (also-preprogrammed) list of talking points.
–
McCain: “Bipartisanship…blah blah blah…”
–
Romney: Good line about Massachusettes being “so blue you can’t tell if it’s black.”
–
I’d have to hear his answer again (got distracted by another blog), but did Tommy try to play both ends of the road on embryonic stem cells?
–
Huckabee: “We value one life as we value all,” as opposed to Islamofascist “culture of death.” Bravo, Governor. Props to Brownback as well, for his answer on rape abortions.
–
Mitt didn’t really answer the abortion question directly. Come on, you can do better. Mitt on immigration: liked the sentiment, but more specific, please.
–
McCain: in rebuttal to Romney, ignored the critique of his legislation & instead played the flip-flop card. Smarmy.
–
Giuliani on immigration: does this man even know how to speak in anything other than soundbytes?
–
Ron Paul talking up conservatism’s non-interventionist history we’re supposed to return to. Guess what, Ron? Something happened. It’s called world war. And now 9/11 is our fault?
–
Credit where credit is due: Rudy blasting Ron Paul for his 9/11 line. Bravo, Mayor. But asking for another 30 seconds seemed just a bit much.
–
Romney: great answer about preventing terroism, Gitmo & keeping terrorists from US lawyers, but I’d like to know what he thinks the difference between “enhanced interrogation” and “torture” is.
–
Duncan Hunter: Simply “get the information.” I agree.
–
My reaction to McCain on torture: you think terrorists are gonna be nicer to American captives if we’re nicer to jihadis prisoners? What planet are you on?
–
Tancredo: If a nuke goes off in America, I’m lookin’ for Jack Bauer. Indeed.
–
Best performances: Huckabee & Hunter. Mitt comes in third (not as strong as the first time around), and everyone else has generally been kinda “eh,” save the highlights I’ve noted. Having all these guys on together is kind of an interesting contrast, but come on: next time, just have Giuliani, McCain & Romney on. That’s the only real choice we have.
–
(Oh, and I’m just curious: y’think the commercials are there to give Tommy bathroom breaks?)