WOW! What a performance by the Republican candidates for president and what a superior way this debate was handled compared to the farce that MSNBC tried to do 12 days ago.
Now, one could say that I am biased towards Fox News Channel and I think anything they do is right. Not always (you should watch the train-wreck of a show called "Red Eye" on at 11pm-I watch to see the first Don Imus moment!). But, they had the moderator, Brit Hume, the questioners, Chris Wallace and White House correspondent Wendell Goller in a dignified manner and respectful of all the candidates, even the moonbat Texas congressman Ron Paul!
The questions were generally insightful and elicited serious, most of the time, responses from the candidates.
So, you ask, who won? Well, I think that Rudy Giuliani scored big in responding to the Texas gasbag, Mr. Paul who essentially asserted that it was United States foreign policy that led to the 9/11 attacks. I swear that if they gave him the rope, Mr. Paul would have given the Rosie O'Donnell view of the collapse of World Trade Center Number Seven. But, back to Mr. Giuliani, he was very comfortable on this, the reason for his candidacy, than most issues, including those thorny "social issues" he clearly hates talking about.
John McCain was so-so. He lost me when he attacked former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney when Mr. Romney attacked the so-called McCain-Feingold "campaign finance reform" as an assault on free speech. He never attacked the substance, but Mr. Romney. Sen. McCain really lost me when he went on his tangent against using torture to get information from terrorist suspects. He just does not get it. Terrorists are not signatories to the Geneva convention. They operate this way to not be part of the civilized world. Giving them the respect of abiding by an outdated treaty so as to keep our "prestige" in world opinion is ridiculous when it may be a matter of life or death. Sen. McCain was a prisoner of war with a legitimate government. Yet, he was tortured. I think he just looks like this whole process has been eight long years and he is showing the wear of waiting.
Mitt Romney took a couple of hits, but overall, continued to be head and shoulders above the rest in knowledge and ideas. I really liked that he talked about preventing a terrorist attack rather than just how he would react to an attack. Also, he scored big by saying we should double the size of the Guantanamo Bay detention center, not close it down. He just keeps looking and sounding more and more presidential.
Out of the bottom tier, I really like California congressman Duncan Hunter. In any other year, he really would get some serious consideration. He knows what he is talking about, does not sound unreasonable about border security and is the kind of all around candidate. I will say that he will be seriously considered for defense secretary in a Republican administration.
Tonight also showed the candidates that should not be on the same stage, led by the Texas gasbag, Ron Paul. At some level, I don't always disagree with some of his positions, particularly on domestic issues. But, seriously suggesting that 9/11 was brought on ourselves gets you put in the Rosie O'Donnell league-a league of his own! Also, Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo just looks out of place. He is running only as the most anti-illegal alien candidate. His whole candidacy is on the issue of illegal immigration. Sorry, Tom but it is just part of the puzzle and until you can get all the pieces together, you are not a serious candidate. Lastly, former Virginia and Wisconsin governors James Gilmore and Tommy Thompson are just . . . Z Z Z Z Z, did either one say anything!
Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback did a little better, but it will not help. He will not go far at all, but should be in future debates. Also, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee is the one of the bottom tier that could get up and be looked at as a serious alternative to the top three.
The real winner is the Republican party. The debate showed that they on the whole are serious and have serious, for the most part, candidates that take the issues of the day seriously.
I tell you, I just do not understand why the Democrat candidates will not go on Fox News Channel for a debate in the same format. The reason, they could not stand the questioning and they would have to actually answer the questions. The Republicans went on MSNBC and most serious political analysts thought that format and the questions asked were a joke.
Whoever wins the Republican presidential nomination, even Rudy Giuliani, will make the American people focused on 2008 while the Democrats will simply chant the mantra, "Blame Bush! Blame Bush!" I think we saw why Republicans will make a big comeback in 2008 tonight in South Carolina.
5 comments:
I thought Ron Paul was the only candidate who spoke frankly and honestly, the rest were fakes
"A friend 80% of the time is still a friend."
Rudy all the way.
The attackers on 9/11 are fully guilty. They have no sympathy. They were wrong. Many innocent people were killed.
Yet, Ron Paul is right. US Foreign policy did lead up to those events. Blowback is well-documented.
It is a shame that a candidate would claim to be ignorant of blowback, even if he disagreed with the ideas.
Brian Dennehy has a political blog? I never knew.
I can't believe I missed it! I had no idea it was on last night, until today.
Thanks for the rundown. I heard it got a little contentious, but...that's going to happen eventually. Always does.
As for blowback, dar. U.S. foreign policy has nothing to do with the increase in Islamic imperialism. They have had their sights set on world domination for centuries. And I suppose if you mean by 'foreign policy' U.S. support of Israel, then maybe you're right. Still and all, the resurgence of Islamic extremism started back in the 70s.
Post a Comment