Previous Next Latest

Debate Scorecard

5/4/07, 3:41 am EST

There’s really not much to talk about. The debate felt like watching live versions of the ten candidates’ websites. No fireworks. Not even interesting flash animation.

But, Hey, did you hear about that Reagan guy? He sure was an optimist. City on a hill and all that.

If you just parachuted onto this planet I don’t think you could have picked out the frontrunners from this crowd.

A couple also-rans were self evident:

Tancredo seemed lost. For a single issue candidate he never seemed to get around to really talking about his signature issue. Which is immigration, by the way.

Tommy Thompson leapt at the chance to call for civil rights violations — firing people for being gay? A-OK — and otherwise failed to impress … other than with his expansive vocabulary.

Ron Paul, I suppose, gets points for standing up for true limited government, but he really could take some fighting lessons from Mike Gravel. These are crazy making times for libertarians as well as progressives. He was just too Mr. Rogers to get anyone’s juices flowing even when he talked about defending habeus corpus and killing the IRS.

McCain: He hit wasteful Washington spending pretty hard, but pulled his punches against Giuliani, making up some wierd story about how his dig about how police and firemen should be on the same radio frequency wasn’t a critique of Giuliani’s failure to implement such a system in New York before 9/11. Reflecting his inherited political team, he debated just like Bush used to, as though he were reciting lines from a neocon Hemingway novel. Tiny sentences. About fear. And Iran. And the line item veto. His applause lines about surrender and the Democrats had less sting because his hard-linerism was out of step even with GOP guys like Brownback and Huckabee. And did you see him want to shit a brick when he was asked if he believed in evolution?

Giuliani: Seems to have abandoned the straight talk on his pro-choice stance, waffling on abortion rights, while also muddying his strict-constructionist view, allowing that such justices might uphold Roe. He’s supposed to be the superstar candidate, the celebrity counterterrorist. But he came off as particularly average tonight, and his answers to the question about if he regretted his relations black New Yorkers — all about poverty and welfare and crime — veered uncomfortably close to Imus territory.

Duncan Hunter: Came off as a credible candidate. He stole all of Tancredo’s thunder on immigration and his unabashed support of the military industrial complex reminded me more of the Reagan I remember than anyone else’s policy positions. He had the presidentiality that Romney’s supposed to project, and a conversationality about his platform that both McCain and Giuliani lacked. Could get some movement.
Mike Huckabee: He was funny and charismatic. His anti-CEO schitck — sticking up for 50 year old guys losing their pensions should win him points with the Lou Dobbs crowd. He out classed Romney for sure. Though I don’t know if America’s ready for a creationist. (That goes for you, too, Brownback. Even more reason to forget Tancredo.)

Brownback: I think he might actually have won the debate. He articulated his worldview in a gracious way. He’s such an extremist … but he didn’t come off as a hater. He was conversational and articulate. Strayed comfortably away from his talking points and had a great line about killing something — the AMT, maybe? — behind a barn with a ‘dull axe’. Again, without looking at the polls, you might think he and Hunter and Gilmore were big top-three.

Gilmore: Weird looking and a bit too intent on introducing himself — he was a Governor, a chief executive, or so he told us about 34 times — and he needed some powder on that forehead, but he — like Brownback — actually articulated a coherent conservative message, and projected confidence and gravitas and everything the jumpy Romney was missing.

Romney: What can you say? He sure looked pissed at the beginning when Chris Matthews took a little too much pleasure in pointing out the fact he’d drawn the far left position on the stage. And the questions about just about everything early on put him on the defensive, such that he couldn’t even slam a slow pitch softball: His mindless gushing about the great heart of the American people was saccharin to the point of distasteful. If he didn’t have so much cash, you’d have to put him in the third tier at this point.

I know, I know. You can’t read too much into a debate like this. It’s like handicapping an NBA playoff series after the first pregame shoot-around. Or trying to predict who’s going to be the team to beat in baseball after watching spring training batting practice.

But A-Rod impresses in batting practice. You can tell the difference between him and, say, Xavier Nady. Tonight the supposed GOP superstars blended in with the guys who are just struggling to make the team. And that’s great news for the big names on the sidelines.


Previous Next Latest

Comments

jeffery mcnary | 5/4/2007, 9:39 am EST

gosh darn! the whole thing was oatmeal…a throw back to a bland time when minorities and women were insignificant in american life. i wold have loved to hear the stilletto heels of condi crosing the stage. rice-rice baby! but then, nancy wouldn’t like that, yes?

Just Us | 5/4/2007, 10:46 am EST

Tancredo is not talking to the…2 second attention span. crowd. I understood what he was saying about abortion.. Legalize it but don’t put lipstick on that pig..It is taking a life..
That National ID card for foriegners only…that employers will use to verify right to work..Citizens and illegals will not have a card..so neither citizens or illegals can work
Start thinking..Tancredo and Paul are the only good candidates..and Paul is too theoretical and hardline Constitutional..Tancredo knows how the Constitution plays out on the ground..Think about what Tancredo said about the amendment for income tax..That is the only authority granted to government for national taxation..
I like Tancredo ..He talks straight..Anyone who has ears..let him hear..

ray | 5/4/2007, 11:17 am EST

Just like last weeks Democratic debate thre was no clear winner. Gilmore did a good job. Hunter scored on energy. Rudy did nt do good at all. MCCain did better than expected except for the evalution question. Paul sounded better as the debate went on.

Repubs on MSNBC | 5/4/2007, 11:53 am EST

I can’t believe ANYONE watched this. And since it was on MSNBC, no one actually did. The wrap-up I read listed what had to be some of the dumbest, hardly relevant questions ever heard. And with very limited time to answer these questions, thoughtful, informative answers were all but impossible.

These debates, especially this early, are useless, EXCEPT to the 24 News stations who have to fill air time. After the debates, they run selected soundbites from the debates, killing even MORE airtime with pundits complaining about the lack of substance from the debates.

The Republicans “played” on MSNBC, why can’t the Dems debate on Fox? Democrats claim they’ll be tough on terrorism, yet they’re afraid of Fox News? Yeah, real convincing.

Dr. Ralph | 5/4/2007, 12:34 pm EST

Too bad politics is as much about personality as ideals. Ron Paul can’t even make a man get excited about snuffing the IRS! I don’t think the next commander in chief has even stepped onto the national stage yet. It’s smart to stay out of the spotlight so people don’t know you too well before they vote. rice-rice baby, too cold! Gottaluvit!

ray | 5/4/2007, 2:21 pm EST

Why should the democrats debate on fox? Tey are biased against democrats They said sec. Rices Syria trip was the first high level trip there in years yet speaker Polosi was just there. Speaker is 3rd in line for president so why give fox a debate? screw that neo nazi net work.

Debates | 5/4/2007, 2:45 pm EST

Ray: Did Repubs say we won’t debate on MSNBC, the network of Keith Olberman? No, they appeared despite what many Repub might say were biased questions. Bill Clinton appeared on Fox News once and fought BACK.

The current crop of Dem candidates seems afraid to debate even EACH OTHER on Fox and perhaps, in the process, pick up some undecided Fox viewers to their side. What are they afraid of? Tough questions? Weak, weak, weak.

ray | 5/4/2007, 4:27 pm EST

Debates you made one good point maybe if The Democrats debated on fox they could get people who wouldnt watch otherwise and some of them like what they see or be turned off by what we know would be a 90 minute hatchet job.

Buzzramjet | 5/4/2007, 9:32 pm EST

Actually, with any kind of luck the true winner was America as it saw what a bunch of weasely throwbacks the current GOP bunch are.

That THREE of them actually raised their hands disavowing science completely, against evolution and stem cell research, was just beyond belief.

Not one of them showed anything but the ability to take America back to the 1800’s.

Scary bunch.

Calvin | 5/4/2007, 11:38 pm EST

What would be the point of having the Democrats debate on Fox News, a network that’s ‘pundits’ will tear them apart at any opportunity in front of an audience that hates them and will never vote for them?

Democrats will debate on Fox News when Republicans agree to debate on “Democracy Now!”

Debates | 5/5/2007, 12:53 am EST

Dems: ready to surrender to terrorists but not Fox News. Afraid of the weather and Fox News.

Jesus F’in Christ, it’s a TV network. Are the current Democratic candidates really that fragile? Have they absolutely no balls to face down “the beast”? (optional Hilary joke goes here)

The Dems have gone from JFK’s Profiles in Courage to their current slogan “The only thing we have to fear is Fox News”

Calvin | 5/5/2007, 1:36 am EST

Completely irrelevant because there’s no point in doing so.

Besides, who cares what network they debate on?

Word? | 5/5/2007, 2:15 am EST

How many con penises have you measured? Sounds like you finally found a subject you have a firm grasp on.

brent | 5/5/2007, 8:30 am EST

I love how pretty much every news source but RS thinks Romney won the debate. Personally, I think he is the only one that has a chance against whoever the Democrats put out there. Which probably goes a long way towards explaining why RS doesn’t like him.

ROZ m | 5/5/2007, 11:30 pm EST

i thought chris matthews did a bad job as moderator. some people he gave longer time to talk, shorter for others. and he occasionally talked over people’s answers. chris forgot this was not a debate, and not a debate he was a participant in….he was only supposed to moderate. and what was that stupid question about bill clinton being in the white house again?
brian williams was much, much better and had better questions.

Sam Readmore | 5/6/2007, 12:39 pm EST

The comment about America not being ready for a Creationist (re: Huckabee) is flat out wrong. I guarantee that both Bushes and Reagan were Creationists. And Bill Clinton was a member of Immanuel Baptist Church in Little Rock. Southern Baptists believe in Creationism. So yeah, America is ready and they’ve been ready. How is that a big issue though? Health care, immigration, taxes, terrorism, and wars have little to do with Creationism. I’m neither a Creationist or a Huckabee supporter, but that comment just came off as extremely flawed. Huckabee has interesting thoughts on all of the other issues, and his actual stance on Creationism is incredibly open-minded, giving everyone the room to believe in their own beliefs….that’s rare for a Republican, especially one with faith.

Brad | 5/6/2007, 6:50 pm EST

Learn how to spell Weird, Tim dickson. Seriously, you write for rollingstone…

Jab | 5/7/2007, 1:11 am EST

Yes Dr. Ralph, let’s sneak a Libertarian onto the ticket, muwahahahah!!!! If you made it on, I’d campaign for him.

Let Them Eat Cake | 5/7/2007, 1:38 am EST

The whole atmosphere and “Event” was a pathetic stab at Conjuring up Reagan’s name like a broken record…(He started the mess of Deregulation and was a puppet for Special Interest Groups).

None of the “candidates” had any real goals, changes in policies, and No talk of Health Care, Public Education, Nothing relevant on Global Warming(most of them are doubtful of its Reality), the crumbling(tax-cut to death)infra-structure…

Th ese men are and were all a part of the Problems we are facing-they have voted like Rubber Stamps for Bush Shit Legislation…

Just emphasizes the fact, Republicans have been in Power far too long…

Bush, the reason We Went to War with Iraq, was never discussed…
Missing billions never talked about, the delay that created a death-filled disaster post-Katrina was Never discussed, the Threat Bush and the Republican Party has been to the Bill of Rights was Never Discussed…

Child predators that seem to have gone Unpunished in the formeer-Republican-led Congress.

Reality and Real Goals and Ideas never seemed to surface at the “Debates”…

Jab | 5/7/2007, 2:35 am EST

Correction: “If he[Paul] made it on, . . “

Brien Comerford | 5/7/2007, 12:34 pm EST

It looks really grim for the Republicans. Their best candidate would be California Governor “Arnold-The Terminator. He has an excellent environmental record and leadership skills. He is preculed from running because he was not born in the United States.

angry == right? | 5/7/2007, 1:29 pm EST

Do not mistake Ron Pauls lack of outward rage for lack of conviction. This guy is adamant about actually addressing the root of the problems with this country (government overstepping its constitutionally drawn boundaries). Almost every problem we have today is solved by simply adhering to the constitution. This mans voting record speaks for itself. He will not abide any law that takes from our liberties. Anyone arguing any points other than that are simply addressing the result of the problem, but not the problem itself. From abortion to war, they all stem from politicians chipping away at the constitution and the bill of rights.

But I guess it only matters how you say things and maybe what you are actually saying. God forbid we care what people actually do and have done. No, we enjoy trusting blindly in our future leaders.

angry == conviction? | 5/7/2007, 1:30 pm EST

Do not mistake Ron Pauls lack of outward rage for lack of conviction. This guy is adamant about actually addressing the root of the problems with this country (government overstepping its constitutionally drawn boundaries). Almost every problem we have today is solved by simply adhering to the constitution. This mans voting record speaks for itself. He will not abide any law that takes from our liberties. Anyone arguing any points other than that are simply addressing the result of the problem, but not the problem itself. From abortion to war, they all stem from politicians chipping away at the constitution and the bill of rights.

But I guess it only matters how you say things and maybe what you are actually saying. God forbid we care what people actually do and have done. No, we enjoy trusting blindly in our future leaders.

Dr. Ralph | 5/7/2007, 8:43 pm EST

You can campaign now, Jeb. I bought the 2.99 bumper sticker! Thinking about buying the 100 pack and plastering Music City USA… Thanks for the correction Jab. angry=, don’t worry about the double post, that proxy error is getting the better of us all.
Nobread, Ron Paul espoused a Constitutional Republic. In this world that’s about as idealistic as it gets… can you imagine California in charge of itself? Medical marijuana would no longer be needed, thank you very much.

C Co... aka I Smell Propaganda | 5/8/2007, 7:30 pm EST

Xavier Nady? You got a guy from ESPN on your staff now? Or you talking to Olbermann? Nice reference if it was original.

Ricky Johnston | 6/10/2007, 12:36 am EST

Ron Paul is the only candidate (democrat or republican) that is consistent in his positions and is not pandering to narrow and perverse party idiocrates. That he is not being covered by the media (shame on you RS)is another failure for the 4th branch. He’s talking about the real issues in honest, straight forward language. This election let’s do something different: let’s vote for substance over showmanship.

Post A Comment

Caution: Off-topic comments will be deleted

Name:

Comments:



Advertisement

Advertisement