Sometimes you learn a lot when you see something on TV (or a video screen) without the sound. If you’re watching a movie, say on a plane where you don’t have headphones and became engaged in the images, chances are its a good flick. You find can you follow the story without hearing the dialogue.
The same holds true for politics. I had little interest yesterday in watching the Republican candidates’ debate at the Reagan Library because the 2008 presidential campaign is beginning way too early.
But, yesterday, while I was at the gym doing cardio, they had the debate up on one the TV monitors, so I had a chance to watch without sound — while occasionally reading the closed captions at the bottom of the screen. I have to say, that of the ten candidates, John McCain looked the best. He came across as feisty energetic and self-confident. Mitt Romney also looked presidential, calm and self-confident. Much as I like Rudy Giuliani, it just seemed that he was phoning in his performance (I think I may have read that on another blog), almost as if he were repeating talking points.
My man just didn’t seem engaged. As a result, he seemed to blend in with the other candidates and did not stand out as did McCain. I still have my problems with McCain, but think David Yepsen of the Des Moines Register offered the best synopsis of the Arizona Senator’s performance:
He was critical of the early conduct of the war but stood steadfast in his support for the troop surge despite its unpopularity. He was critical of President Bush for allowing too much spending and went against the Republican grain on issues such as stem-cell research. He also said Congress made a mistake meddling in the Terri Schiavo case.
McCain often comes off well when he says things people don’t like. If you say it with conviction, voters will respect you even as they disagree.
I was following the debate (via those captions) when McCain addressed the Iraq war and commend him for succinctly making his point, noting that while he had been critical of the president in the past, he believes he has finally put together a good strategy. Kudos, Senator. This time, you’re telling it like it is.
From the perspective of this blogger who saw the debate without actually hearing the candidates, I agree that it represents a net plus for John McCain. Simply put, he looked good. But, note as well the observation of Roger Simon (and not just him) that a man who wasn’t there, Fred Thompson, won the debate.
If the debate has any impact on the race, I think it will be to tighten it up a bit. And should Thompson jump in (as most expect him to), he could find himself in close competition with both McCain and Giuliani. Instead of the two-man contest I imagined last month, we could well see a three men in serious competition for the GOP nomination.
The most striking thing about the early part of the debate was when Gov Thompson was asked directly if a businessman should be able to fire someone because he was gay. Gov Thompson paused, then said YES. It’s up to the businessman to run his shop the way he sees fit. I think everyone on the stage felt uncomfortable and knew Tommy Thompson was cooked. But last night and today I’ve not heard nearly enough about his answer. There are nice and conservative polititians who do a great job running a state, as Thompson has. But they are still totally out to lunch when it comes to equal rights for gays. And it’s because they just don’t know or come in contact with any.
I’m still supporting Gingrich, while I can’t support McCain anymore due to his age; his “trimming” on issues to appeal to the Fundementalists; and his overt, active support of DADT…flying in the face of our own Allies real-world experience with open service.
And after seeing the PBS critique of Mormonism, in my house Romney’s anathema….even to my parents. No man who’s soul and conscience is subject to a “Prophet” should have access to the “Button”, nor should he be the most powerful person and leader of the Known Universe.
That leaves Gingrich, Guiliani, or possibly Fred Thompson….the others are just seven dwarfs.
Were people as frustrated as I am about the past two so-called presidential debates? I can’t see how we are going to solve the real problems in this world with such political fluff. And the moderaters asked such softball questions.
I did find this list on the Washington Post’s Offbeat Blog of Questions We’d Like To Hear?
Don’t know if it’s dignified enough for network TV but it certainly cuts the crap!
Careful, Gene.
In theory, yes, employment at will means exactly that — you may employ who you want, when you want, and you may cease employing them whenever you want. Conversely, it means you may cease your employment whenever you want as well.
Thompson’s mistake was in not correctly prefacing his remark. He’s totally supportable from a libertarian point of view; if a business owner genuinely doesn’t want to employ a gay person, that is their prerogative. However, the question that must be asked is if this completely precludes the gay person from ever making a living or having to jump through an unreasonable amount of hoops to work based on a condition that is not relevant to the job.
The way I would have answered it is this: “I fully support the right of a businessman to fire anyone who is not capable of or unfit to do their job. But no one’s ever explained to me how the simple fact of being gay makes you any less capable or fit to do your job, any more than being a single pregnant mother, divorced male, Christian, white, or anything else would — and we thought it was necessary to have laws making it clear that those had nothing to do with your ability to do your job. Since, according to gay Democrat organizations, the majority of companies in this country have already adopted policies that include sexual orientation as something irrelevant to job performance, I see no point in forcing them to make that choice by law; however, as President, if it became obvious that companies were persisting in discriminating against gays solely on the basis of their sexual orientation, I would support adding sexual orientation to the protections I’ve already mentioned above.”
The argument that “it’s just too damn early” simply doesn’t wash, especially as time flies. The idea (and poll numbers and analysis) that suggest Fred Thompson is above the fray is merely optimist code for reconaissance and calculation. If Thompson expects to win me over with cynical opportunism by shoehorning himself in-between other candidates after they’ve taken the risks of declaring and participating, he’s mistaken. It’s easy to stay the outsider, keeping quiet and cashing in on apathy and dissatisfaction; if ‘more than half of life is showing up’, then I think a measure of political respect, while not requiring agreement, requires earning my vote with dedication and desire for the sought office.
(By the way, I completely agree with Tommy Thompson’s statement that an employee can be fired for being gay. Employment is not a right for anyone for any reason. Bigots also enjoy property rights and anyone who states they’re against hate crimes legislation while supporting gay employment ‘rights’ needs to do some thinking.)
I couldn’t take it seriously because of the idiotic questions. It wasn’t a debate. It was Hardball. And Matthews was the biggest idiot of all–especially with that question to Mitt about the bishops. Does he really think the government should force bishops to commune those who flagrantly oppose the teachings of the Church?
It is not only ridiculous that we have a non-stop election cycle, I think it’s also bad for the country. So many senators are running and posturing for president, they spend too much time preening for the fringe constituencies and not enough time governing, and no time at all governing responsibly. Kudos to Fred Thompson and even Al Gore for staying out of it and giving us a break.
Rich Lowry posits: “In the next debate, someone should ask Rudy why exactly he hates abortion. ” That would be even more entertaining than him trying to explain the difference between Shia and Sunni.
As was the case in South Carolina with the full-field Democratic event, this was nothing more than a crowded press conference. (And the reporters contributed nothing with their babble and “questions”.)
This is one of the most critical presidential elections and it’s time for serious, in-depth dialogue among the major candidates.
Most of the candidates don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning the nominations and should be eliminated from future debates.
At some point, possibly by mid-July and definitely by Labor Day, any Democrat or Republican under 10 percent in the polls should be eliminated from their parties’ debates.
All the focus must be on those who have a realistic chance to win the two nominations. They need the time (and attention “debates” provide) to tell us where they want America to be come January 19,2017, how they will help get us there and their qualifications to do it.
Thompson and Gore are no longer in Washington, D.C. and are no longer governing. If they deserve kudos for ‘staying out of it’ (Thompson ‘retired’ from government [although it appears he’s waiting for the moment one of the front-runners stumbles to announce he can’t wait to get back into government] and Gore was retired [so he’s really had no choice but to stay out of it] — in either case, neither is particularly admirable in view of an election cycle), perhaps there really is something to the argument that the less time a politician spends in Washington actually governing (i.e. passing legislation and preening the Senate Chambers), the better. There are far too many politicians who spend far too much time ‘governing’ and I’d rather the preening were accomplished on the campaign trail then in the back rooms of our fair capitol.
These MSNBC, MSNetwork of Bigots and Creeps, debates. The moderators are morons. Who has a 90 minute debate with people who could end up running the country and 50% of the questions come from bloggers? Not intelligent informed bloggers but netroots idiots. “What do you hate most about America?”. “What will you do about women in prisons?”. The moderators are supposedly educated journalists. They have this much air time with arguably the next President on stage with possibly half his cabinet and we get this! I wanted to get informed. My conclusion after all the questions and answers was……the media are morons. Especially the MSNBC variety.
Having said that:
I was most surprised by Romney. He was comfortable and knowledgeable. The abortion thing will continue to dog him but he’s changed his stance. So that’s fair. B
McCain was trying to show he is alert and energized. Yep he’s plugged in and has tons of experience. He’s a hero in my book. But we can say it because we’re family, he’s old. 72 is too old in the world we live in to begin a Presidential term. We have 300 million people folks. Someone under 60 can serve as President. In the next couple years I want McCain to give a MacArthur speech at West Point. C
Guiliani. Seemed off his game. And very cautious. I thought the “moderators” had it out for him. He got the toughest questions, with the most follow up. He can do better. C
Huckabee. What a surprise. Comfortable with himself, his views, and the format. I thought very polished and concise. Would like to see him in a 3 or 4 man debate. B+
Gilmore. A conservative but too unknown to move the needle in the next 8 months. B
Ron Paul. Crazy enough to be a Democrat. Seems more like a Joe Kennedy Democrat. “Come home America, the Jews are fine.” C
Tommy Thompson. A couple weeks ago he made a Jewish slur, he should have finessed the gay business question I guess better. F
Fred Thompson. We can still make him anything we want. A+
Newt, hurry up please.
Who were the others?
#1
Why not? It’s perfectly legal to discriminate against whites and/or males in many jobs and college admissions. Why stop there?
So one in three GOP Presidential candidates doesn’t believe in evolution , and a fourth, McCain, had to think for awhile before he admitted he did believe in it. Good grief! What a showcase for ten of the finest minds of the century… the 14th century that is.
Hey how about Edwards’ snap response regarding who he looks to for moral guidance the other night?
Please. As if ANY Dhimmicrat knows what “moral guidance” is, let alone looking for it. That’s why The Breck Girl took about 12 seconds of dead air trying to figure it out.
To paraphrase Ann Coulter, asking a trial lawyer like Edwards to name his favorite moral leader is like asking the president of Iran to name his favorite Jew. (Answer: George Soros.)
Personally, I thought it was funny that Edwards named his wife Elizabeth as his “moral guidance” guru. You could tell that Shrillary was tensing up, hoping she wouldn’t be asked the same question.
Regards,
Peter H.
I suspect these GOP Presidential candidates are representative of the party as a whole. I wonder which of the posters and regular conservative commenters here don’t believe in evolution. I’ll bet Dan believes in it but that’s the only one I’m sure of.
“Fred Thompson. We can still make him anything we want. A+”
In other words, Thompson is the vaunted candidate because we’re ignorant.
This is what I don’t understand: Some of us like Thompson not despite he’s not a candidate, but because he’s only pretending not to be a candidate, i.e. Thompson is praised because he’s only willing to dip his toe in the water while the others are swimming with the sharks.
Folks, this isn’t admirable. It would be one thing if Thompson made a public statement saying, “I and many other Americans think this is way too soon to begin a Presidential campaign. I am interested in seeking the Presidency of the United States, but in respect to our current President and in an effort not to fatigue the American people, I refrain from entering the race for our nation’s highest office until Labor Day.” Then he would, perhaps, deserve praise from those who honestly believe that beginning a campaign this early is some form of heresy. (And if it’s true that polling data indicate that the American people are overwhelmingly appalled at the early date of this campaign, he would garner much goodwill. I suspect the data doesn’t really bear this out.) However, this is not what he’s doing. He’s campaigning while pretending not to, but not saying anything very specific, cynically waiting for his opportunity (and giving himself a graceful exit strategy if this campaign = exploratory committee doesn’t quite work out). Some think he ‘says the right things’, but there is a difference between saying what’s right and merely avoiding saying what’s wrong by saying nothing. We don’t really know what he would specifically do or how he performs under the pressure of a hostile media, giving us a projected glimpse of a Thompson administration. He merely makes vague allusions in an avuncular style and for this, many seem to think he deserves angel wings.
Whatever. Thompson may be a very nice, decent person and it may turn out that he’s quite the canny, wiley politician, but I reserve my respect for those who’ve earned it.
In listening to the debate (rather than watching it), I thought one of the better participants was Duncan Hunter. Well-spoken, efficient, understands our position in the world, a bit tenuous on economic issues (needs a quick brush-up, methinks), but otherwise a good performer.
* * * * * *
I don’t ‘believe in’ evolution as others believe in a god, but I think that the evidence overwhelmingly supports the general theory. I also don’t happen to think that evolution and religion are necessarily mutually exclusive, though I myself am not religious. Incidentally, I am not a conservative, but in this context, that’s probably a redundant statement.
#18:
That is absolutely true. Presumably an omnipotent creator could have created the evolutionary process. I think that is the position of the Catholic Church. It’s why I’m appalled at the three GOP candidates who apparently deny the reality of evolution. This anti-science mindset of so many in the GOP is scary.
Of course there is evidence of evolution. Look at Hillary’s position on the war. hehe
I guess I just believe that evolution is something that is, but I don’t believe it is everything that is.
I don’t. However I read your posts and have to wonder….
While the idea of a candidate not believing in evolution is a bit strange to me, I’m not sure how it would impact current policy. I’m more worried about the current crop of protectionist politicians (from both the left and the right ) who don’t believe in the benefits of free-trade.
#23 I agree with John (or with what he’s implying).
Another’s faith is no concern of mine as long as they recognize the privacy of their decision and my right not to share it. I don’t want faith or its organizations to be financed with government funds — I’d hate for government to attempt to control faith-based organizations as much as hate for those organizations to control our government. And I’m very much against those who use their faith as a weapon. (Osama bin Laden is an obvious example, but whenever I need reminding of nihilist zealotry, whenever my fide is missing from my Infidel, I simply log onto GayPatriot and I can rest assured that I can be attacked right in the comfort of my own home.)
Just as I don’t mind another’s innocuous practice of a faith, I don’t mind it being part of the public discourse. My freedom of religion (and to be an agnostic) does not mean a freedom from religion and I accept that for many, faith is integral to their existence and their values. I also understand that most of history’s most brilliant minds were those who reserved part of their intellect for a lack of intellect in the form of an unknowable being. I sometimes wonder whether we are hard-wired for this kind of spirituality.
I’m more concerned with those who worship the state because they require that I contribute to it. I willingly pay my taxes for those basic services I and other individuals cannot efficiently provide ourselves, but there is much I don’t support or think would be better financed voluntarily (and thus with accountability).
You mean the same science that concluded long ago that the Earth was flat? The same science that determined conclusively that the Negro is inferrior to whites? Or how about the science that claims that global warming is something new and will destroy us all unless we use cheesy-assed mercury filled lightbulbs made in China?
The alar apple scare was based on science. So was nuclear winter. So was Y2K. So was banning DDT. Global cooling? Science. Population destroying the Earth? Science. I can go on. How many times have we had to change what we know to be true?
And you want me to believe that we came from monkies, even though they’re still around, just because some Godless scienticians, who don’t want to admit there’s something out there bigger than their ego, say so? Sorry.
You may fling your poo elsewhere.
ThatGayConservative,
Science also proved that the Earth was round. Or did you forget that? Science by it’s very nature is not set in stone. It’s always evolving, always changing, always seeking new answers, new paths and discovering new things every day. Science is beautiful that way. Science can be magical, wonderful and provides such insight into ourselves and the universe. Religion was once upon the forefront of knowledge and science and now they turn their backs on it and embrace ignorance.
You fling poo on Science that like a monkey yourself. No better proof that we are descended from monkeys when you yourself behave like one.
Ook Ook.
#25: Your anti-science rant doesn’t surprise me in the least. At least you have the honesty to admit your stance. I’ll bet there are other commentters who aren’t quite so open.
unless we’re hit again by terrorists, which would change thinking in ways we can’t fathom at this point, the 2008 presidential election will be won by a democrat, any democrat, unless the gop offers up colin powell. he’s the only repug with any credibility and standing and would defeat any democrat.
mccain? nah, too old and too tied to iraq giulani? nope, too many pics of him in drag. romney? never, unless he flip flops to evangelical christianity. huckabee? joke. fred thompson? lazy. tommy thompson? can’t hear. brownback? please. gingrich? too many divorces from cancer-stricken wives.
better start a draft powell campaign, or it’ll be a long 4 or 8 years for the repugs.
#24
I agree but I wonder how many politicians (left or right) would advocate eliminating “charitable deductions” in the tax code. The government doesn’t support religion? yeah, right.
#29 Agreed and let’s not forget tax exemptions for churches and other faith-based organizations.