AmericanPapist Comments
I think McCain actually did fairly well. He never stumbled on a question, as Romney, Giuliani, and Paul. He got in a few classic McCain one liners (paternity tests for bears).
Paul articulated himself fairly well, though his philosophy doesn't play well in a debate as it frequently requires explanation. (Pathetic I have to type that.) I was surprised by the fact the "boo"s against him couldn't overwhelm the applause.
Thompson's old, poor in person, but has a great media campaign.
Huckabee beat Romney on education for children of illegal immigrants in a way that Giuliani couldn't, even though their positions seem to be similar.
My overall winners would be Huckabee for a solid performance with no real missteps, and McCain for not stepping on himself and scoring some small government points. Overall loser is Romney, who had to put down Huckabee's surging social conservative support but couldn't answer the Bible question or gays in the military question.
Hey Thomas,
Long time reader. Check your site every day. Never bothered to post in the comments before.
Up until tonight I was pretty much sold on Ron Paul. You've made a solid argument for him as the Catholic candidate of choice. I really wasn't a fan of how he handled himself tonight, especially on the abortion issue. Ron really doesn't do strong at all in debates.
I'm really not a fan of how Ron wants to handle the abortion issue. He truly believes that regulation of a lot of things like abortion is best done at the state level. If Roe v Wade gets overturned and each state decides abortion laws, you've got a bit of a mess in my opinion.
As a person running for President, and claiming to be pro-life, that's a bit of a cop out inst it? I'm against it but if a state decides its ok, well whatever?
Romney was definitely the best tonight, even though he got grilled a few times. Didn't like Giuliani at all, but I didn't mind McCain.
Romney carried the night, came across Presidential? I thought he came across rather robotic.
Tonight I was very impressed by Huckabee. He came across as the most 'human' of all the candidates, and (unlike the rest) not a robot or a puppet. His answers, often including humour, were clear and sounded backed up by a man of true (ie. not fabricated) moral integrity and concern for others. I found his response to the question on biblical interpretation to be quite informed, and as a Christian, believe he has a solid foundation. While I am unaware exactly of all his policies I agree with his pleasant, humourous, and informed Christian character and feel he would make the correct decision as a charismatic president - uniting the country.
I thought that all of the candidates did remarkably well considering how inane, stupid, and offensive so many of the questions were. I had seen debates with bad questions before, but nothing to compare to last night's debate.
First of all, it's quite clear that most of the people asking the questions were not Republicans, or at very least not conservative Republicans. Most of them seemed to be liberals or at least to have liberal leanings, and they seemed to be trying to trip up the candidates or to make them look bad with the questions they asked. The question about what should the penalty be for a woman who has an abortion is a great example. No sincere and genuine pro-life politician is interested in locking up women who abort. Rather they're interested in protecting the unborn and in helping expectant moms. If anyone would ever get locked up, it would obviously be the doctor who performed the abortion. The apparent agenda behind that question was simply reprehensible, in my humble opinion.
Second, many of the questions were on topics that simply aren't even on most people's radar screen when it comes to choosing a president. What would a president do about black-on-black violence? Would he fund a trip to Mars? How would he fund bridge repairs? How much power would he give to his vice-president? Are these REALLY the questions that are foremost in most voters' minds??
But getting back to the candidates themselves: I thought that the only one who made me cringe and say, wow I really hope HE doesn't get the nomination was Giuliani, though McCain came close to falling into this category as well (not because of what he said, but just because of everything I know about McCain's political history as someone who has often been at odds with the conservative agenda). I thought that Romney did very well, and I found myself really liking him and his answers. But I have grave reservations about his history as well, especially based on some things that Domenico Bettenelli has reported in previous years about Romney's record on gay "marriage" in Massachusetts.
I think that the two candidates who I most strongly support at this point are Huckabee and Paul, though I would gladly include Tancredo and Hunter if I thought that they had a legitimate shot at the nomination.
I think that the two candidates who I most strongly support at this point are Huckabee and Paul
Wow. They're pretty much on the complete opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to their views on how government should work. Huckabee urges greater governemnt intervention everywhere, and Paul wants government out of everything. They're both pro-life, but I think they're basic philosophies are poles apart. Interesting that you'd make them your top two choices.
As for me, I once again missed the sound biteathon. Tell me when there's two or three guys on stage, not eight. Regardless, I've finally decided who I am going to vote for, and it's Fred. I mean Fred!
Ron Paul is reminding me of the old Saturday Night Live character, The Grumpy Old Man.
Huckabee was the most human, the most humorous and the most likable.
Giuliani is sounding like a broken record.
Hunter and Tancredo are fading, fading, and just spinning their wheels- I don't know why they can't get any traction.
McCain- seemed angry most of the night, and just grits his teeth.
Romney- too Robert Redford in The Candidate, and looked a like a deer in the headlight several times.
Oh yeah, I forgot Thompson- maybe that's becasue he is pretty forgetable.
I would be interested to see how Mike Huckabee's Southern Baptist brethren treat his statement on the veracity of scripture. While I have no issue with his statement that some parts of scripture are allegorical and meant to be taken that way, AFAIK, that is not the official Southern Baptist position. I could easily be wrong on that.
I'm a Huckabee supporter at this point, but was not entirely pleased with his performance last night.
I do think Romney, overall, had the best performance.
Giuliani looked very tired. Fred Thompson - for whom I had high hopes - appeared bored and patrician, in the worst sense of the word. For all the good things that can be said about Ron Paul, he simply comes across as a kook. Unfortunately, his kookiness factor detracts from the serious attention that many of his stands deserve, I was pleased that he does not intend a third party run. (One of my twisted political fantasies is a debate between Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, moderated by George Noury).
The format of the debate, in my opinion, lends itself way too much to a less than serious handling of the issues. C'mon - a cartoon Veep?
At least there were no snowmen...
I tried to watch it, and just got bored. Laughed out loud when several of them took a "read-my-lips" pledge on taxes. That these things are billed as "debates" makes my rhetorician's blood run cold.
You make an excellent point regarding Romney's "flip-flop" on abortion. Their is little room for conversion or growth of an opinion in politics, which is disturbing at times. Recall Harold Ford of Tennessee who got slammed by the Democrats (his own party) because he said he changed his mind about abortion after talking with someone about abortion. An obvious conversation considering the political consequences.
It's not that folks don't like converts, it's that they don't believe or trust Romney when he says what his beliefs are today.
I don't watch debates, since I don't find them all that helpful since it is pretty much survival of the sound bite. Or how the candidate looks and how at ease he is.
In theory I would much prefer that all questions be answered by essays that they would have to write by themselves, but of course that will never happen.
Wow. They're pretty much on the complete opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to their views on how government should work. Huckabee urges greater governemnt intervention everywhere, and Paul wants government out of everything.
Well, I basically support Huckabee and Paul not because they are similar, but because I think that they are the two best candidates who actually have a shot (even if a very long shot) at the nomination. Giuliani is pro-abortion, so he's out. Romney has been pro-abortion and pro-gay-"marriage" in the recent past, so even if he claims not to be now, I am skeptical, so he's mostly out. McCain has worked tirelessly to undermine conservative principles on a whole host of issues for many years, and his pro-life credentials are shaky, so he's out. I would consider Fred Thompson, but I just don't think he has much of a shot at the nomination -- he just isn't generating any excitement.
I like Huckabee because he is 100% pro-life, something that can't be said of any of the top-tier candidates. Even Fred Thompson has done at least a bit of waffling in this area if I'm not mistaken. I do think that Huckabee lacks true conservative credentials on other issues, but the life issues trump everything else in my book, and I think that he is at least semi-conservative. (For example, he is supports the "fair tax" in place of the income tax, he claims to support strong border security, etc.)
I like Ron Paul because I agree REALLY STRONGLY with most of his positions -- especially drastically reducing government spending, eliminating the income tax, phasing out social security, and basically just getting the government out of 90% of the activities that it is currently involved in, but in which it never should have gotten involved in the first place. However, I have some misgivings about his stand on the life issues. I know that he is pro-life, but I think it is a cop-out for him simply to say he would pass this issue off to the states. On the one hand, that might actually be the most effective way to outlaw the largest number of abortions sooner rather than later (which is good), however I think that if the federal government cannot legitimately protect the life of its citizens (or citizens in waiting, so to speak), then what CAN it legitimately do?
I know that Huckabee and Paul disagree strongly on the Iraq War, and on military intervention in general, but I have mixed feelings on that issue myself, so neither of their positions entirely alienates me. I would however very much like to hear a detailed explanation from Ron Paul of what he would do regarding getting out of Iraq. If his answer is that he would keep the troops there as long as necessary to stabilize the country, so that we do not leave them with chaos, but then he would refrain from such military interventions in the future, well I would be satisfied with that answer. On the other hand, if his answer is that he would pull all the tr
My previous comment got cut off. To complete my last thought:
...On the other hand, if his answer is that he would pull all the troops out immediately, with no regard for the situation that they leave behind, then I would view this answer as immoral and unacceptable.
Finally, regarding his "flip-flop" on the abortion issue. I just don't see what good it does pro-life figures to criticize him changing his mind. Isn't that exactly what we wish to see happen among our politicians?
Yes, but I'd rather see him have a pro-life conversion, then serve in some other office, like senator, representative, governor, etc., where we could see some actual evidence of his pro-life convictions in action. Then he would have a better basis to run for president as a pro-life candidate. As it is, the timing of his conversion just looks too suspicious, however I do hope and pray that it is sincere. And I will gladly support Romney over Clinton or Obama, if he does get the nomination.
To be clear I am not a Romney supporter, but to give the man a fair shake. I understand as governor he fought gay marriage, etc. Admittedly is position on embryonic stem cell research is not something to write home about. As a Romney staffer in the NY Times said regarding the new developments in stem cells (to paraphrase) "our campaign breathed a sigh of relief".
Unfortunately, Huckabee won the night with his sweet talking and good ol' boy jokes. After that I would give it to McCain and Paul. McCain by virtue of his moral grand standing, and Paul by virtue of his competent answers (and the only one to give them)
I was not impressed by Paul's debate performance, but that does not change my support for him. He's the only one that seems to be genuine, and more importantly- educated on the issues. His answer to the first question regarding the NAU and CFR was very sober, and not at all "kooky" as he is portrayed. He's the only one to put forward the reality that there is a real and tangible battle of ideas going on here that is not being debated or discussed.
I agree- he should have pounced on the abortion topic. He also could have/should have one-upped Huckabee's attempt at stealing his position on eliminating the IRS by bluntly calling for the 16th amendment's repeal. But I have a feeling he's too decent of a guy to play rough and dirty like the rest of these guys.
Romney had the most to lose and did terribly. He came off as a true politician; blatantly being noncommital about everything and walking right into Guiliani's argumentative tactics. Rudy just came off again as a sonofabitch, but then- thats what he has always been. And unapologetically so.
But, if you ask me, the big loser of the night was Anderson Cooper/CNN/Youtube. It was more the same crap: meaningless interludes, uncontrolled tangents, irrelevant questions and 'focus group'-style structuring.
CNN ought to be embarassed by this kind of "quality" and Youtube/Google should disassociate itself from this kind of distracting and unconstructive content. Its boderline damaging to our country to put this kind of circus show on. Some 4th Estate we have. Ugh.
I understand as governor he fought gay marriage, etc.
Are you a reader of Domenico Bettenelli's blog? He lives in Massachusetts, and he did a lot of commentary and reporting on the "gay marriage" controversy there a couple of years ago. I looked up some of Dom's coverage, and I do acknowledge that Romney took some steps to oppose "gay marriage" in Massachusetts. However, it also appears that he could have done more, and he didn't. So while I give him credit for being on the right side of the issue, I am quite concerned that he apparently didn't take stronger action on this issue.
Check out some of the links in the following Google search results, to see some of the good and bad (but more bad than good, unfortunately).
Bettnet.com blog posts containing the word "romney"
Just to add to my previous comment, I really do hope that my concerns about Romney are unwarranted, and that he turns out to be very solid on the life and marriage issues. But I've been following politics long enough to be skeptical -- that's all.
A pandering weasel is still a pandering weasel whether he is sincere or not in claiming to be converted to the prolife position.
I agree with you Thomas, on Romney. We should support his move to a pro-life stance. Great point about how we ought to applaud people for changing. Gives others an incentive to change.
Huckabee was honorable by standing up and saying American citizens should not be denied rights or benefits because of who their parents are. The attacks on him for this were pathetic.
As for the observation: No sincere and genuine pro-life politician is interested in locking up women who abort. Rather they're interested in protecting the unborn and in helping expectant moms.
I'm not sure, at least based on some of the more strident comments one hears that there can be a whole lot of confidence as to that. I would like to believe otherwise.
Katherine is right re locking up aborting women. While very much a fringe group, a decent number of Catholic blog commentators, including some very erudite ones, have said that this is their goal. Of course, they are hurting the cause, but that does not seem to concern them that much. They seem to think that being principled and right will get them to heaven, and that is a higher goal than saving the unborn.
Commenting by HaloScan
