GOP Debate Analysis – Round 1
3 May 2007The first GOP Presidential Debate is tonight and I’m blogging it as it happens. Unfortunately the debate is on MSNBC which completely befuddles me. I think the GOP should have demanded FOX News since the Dems refused to debate on that network. And, unfortunately, Hardball boob, Chris Mathews, is the moderator for this debate. Is there a more self righteous, pompous ass out there? But it is what it is so here goes.
The biggest thing that struck me tonight was that no one made a big mistake and everyone did a pretty good job of speaking and answering. Of course, with Christ Matthews asking most of the questions, that wasn’t too difficult. Matthews asked some of the stupidest question imaginable. For example, Matthews wanted to know what several candidates thought about Carl Rove. He asked who would pardon Scooter Libby and, amazingly, Matthews asked if having Bill Clinton back in the White House was a good idea. With questions like that, how could the candidates go wrong?
All in all the questions were pretty softball. There were no difficult foreign policy questions to handle. The most difficult question of the night came from a Politico.com reader who asked Giuliani the difference between a Sunni and Shiite. Amazingly, Rudy knew the answer.
Mitt Romney probably came out on top tonight. He had good answers for every question, answers that conservatives could be happy with. He was pro like, supports alternatives to fetal stem cell research and opposed government funding of that research, pro tax cuts and was the only candidate to attack McCain Feingold Campaign Finance Reform. Romney came out very well.
McCain did a very good job as well. If I didn’t know him and already have my problems with him I might have come out of tonight a McCain supporter. He was the strongest in support of the war against Islamic Fascism and seemed to really understand the threat. McCain also exhibits a real understanding of why Republicans lost last November, something sorely lacking in the Republican Party. Still, McCain came out in support of federal funding of fetal stem cell research and he was the author of the worst attack in the first amendment in my lifetime.
Giuliani also came off pretty good overall but he still sounds wishy washy on abortion. He wants to appeal to both sides and he will not be able to pull that off.
Predictably, Ron Paul was his usual libertarian self. While I agree with him on a lot of issues, he clearly does not understand that threat we face from Islamic Fascism. He still believes we should not have gone to war with Iraq, he believes we should get out immediately and he thinks the US should have a non-interventionist policy.
Tommy Thompson said that Iraqis should vote on whether the US should be there and then we should respect their vote. I wholeheartedly disagree with that assessment. We must stay and win or the world will become a much more dangerous place.
All the candidate expressed pro life positions. With the exception of Giuliani, their support was pretty strong.
Brownback was the only candidate to take the position that faith should be allowed back into the public square. Indeed, he thinks it should be celebrated and invited back in. That is a position I strongly support.
Huckabee took the McCain position that we never had enough troops in Iraq to begin with. While I disagreed with McCain originally, in retrospect I now agree and think that Bush has badly mishandled the war. So I agree with both McCain and Huckabee on this issue.
Gilmore expressed the belief that prior to 9/11 the US didn’t pay enough attention the Middle East as a whole and this is a long term problem. That comports well with McCain’s position and I agree. Gilmore also believes that the US must represent the world in some respect.
As expected, Tancredo spent a lot of time on border security, or the lack thereof. He was also the only candidate to endorse the FairTax, a position I firmly agree with. Along with all the other candidates he supported tax cuts but said that unless we deal with mandatory spending issues, we still have a huge problem.
Along with Tancredo, Duncan Hunter also said border security is a large issue that must be dealt with. He said we must have an enforceable border. Hunter also supported building the Iraqi army rapidly so they can begin to take over from US troops, thereby letting us take on support rolls.
No candidate was asked and none ventured opinions on the problem of the Iraqi government and the problems it presents in terms of not cooperating with US objectives. In my opinion that was a big oversight on the part of Chris Matthews as the moderator.
As I said, this was a pretty tame debate. I expect more of the same next week in Columbia, SC. It is just too early in the campaign to see the candidates attack each other. I hope the moderator will at least ask some tough questions next week about foreign policy and about economics. If thew public is to begin deciding, they need real answers, not platitudes. It requires real questions to get real answers.
In closing I just want to say, it’s too bad Fred Thompson wasn’t there.
Print This Post
Tags: Conservatives, Elections, Politicians, Politics, Republicans, RINOsRelated Posts
- Iowa Caucus Predictions
- GOP Debate Analysis – Round 2
- FairTax Rally at SC GOP Debate
- Orlando GOP Debate Review
- Koch Sees Republicans Holding Congress
May 4th, 2007 at 8:35 am
Great analysis of the GOP debate….thanks! Fox News is talking about how annoying and useless Chris Matthews was as well………perhaps Chris WALLACE would be a great choice for that roll!
And on your final comment about Fred Thompson….it is only a matter of TIME!! Yes I CAN say President Thompson!
May 17th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
Well, you got to see Chris Wallace and yes, he was infinately superior to Christ Matthews. See my post on round 2.