Oct 22 2007

Debate Thoughts

Another week and another republican presidential debate. Ok, maybe they aren’t happening that often, but it feels like it. I’m not going to recap the entire thing. Rather I’ll hit what I think are the highlights and important developments, though in no particular order.

Fred Thompson can be exciting. After some lackluster performances I was beginning to question whether Fred Thompson was capable of energetically delivering what are quite sound and desirable positions. Last night he took a big step in the right direction. He also called Ted Kennedy fat. Mega bonus points. He got hit on tort reform, and though his answer included his federalist argument (one I sympathize with), his answer also rambled a bit. It was the only issue that provided a real weak point, though.

If John McCain is a top-tier candidate, so is Mike Huckabee. There’s no doubt that McCain gave many strong answers. His statement that he would rather lose a campaign than lose a war probably the most memorable of any candidate in the entire debate. It was that rare occasion where not only was a politician putting principle above politics, but it was believable. He also joked and got the laughs just as well as any of them. Yet it doesn’t seem to be enough to connect with the voters. He did possibly flub one answer, when he talked about the importance of reconciliation with former “enemies”. Though he was making a valid point, lumping the religious right into the same category as the Vietnamese may not have been quite what he intended. Mike Huckabee, on the other hand, continues to impress. Even where I disagree, the clear sincerity behind his views is itself inspiring.

Rudy Giuliani is still the front-runner, but not by much. The most striking observation to take from this debate is that this race is wide open. Giuliani has the best position at present, but any of the five main candidates (I’m including here Huckabee) could catch fire and make a run for it. Giuliani gave a potent line in response to a question about whether he can win teachers over. He said he cared more about students than teachers. Right on. Rudy didn’t step into anything here, so in so far as he came in ahead, he also came out ahead. Romney didn’t do anything particularly memorable, but he was similarly without any major flops. He’s warming on me, slowly.

Ron Paul would be right if he weren’t so wrong. His first question (on gay marriage) actually showed his intelligent, rather than crazy, side. But then we got to foreign policy. Nonintervention is a preferred default policy. But there are times when that policy is completely disastrous. Our nonintervention, and the nonintervention of Europe, in the lead up to WWII nearly let Hitler and his evil ideology triumph. Nonintervention in todays world would be just as dangerous, as radical global jihad poses the same threat. But we should temper our action with the awareness that it’s best not to engage in such policies if we don’t have to. It’s just not acceptable to adopt Ron Paul’s philosophy of complete isolationism.

Edit: I almost forgot to include one of the most stark comparisons presented by this debate.

Fox News is light years above the rest of the media. This debate outclassed the rest by miles. That hack Chris Mathews and his joke of a debate that he hosts on MSNBC has now been twice blown away by Fox.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.