Brief Thoughts On Last Night's Debate

I like to provide my impressions about debates the next day because by that time much of what was said has slipped out of my mind and I'd like to think that what remains does so because is was in some measure memorable to me.  Powered by a cup of strong coffee, on to my thoughts.

First of all, there were too many candidates invited to participate in the debate.  I know that nobody wants to be the bad guy and be accused of "undermining democracy" by not allowing all the candidates to perform, but it's hard to get beyond the appetizer to the main course with the time being divided up so many ways.  It's also annoying that not all of the candidates get to respond to the same questions, and there is certainly no time for follow-up questions to get a candidate to elaborate on whatever point or points they might have made.  

Beyond the debate format, I thought Governor Huckabee comported himself well and gave compelling arguments for why we have an obligation to stay in Iraq until victory is achieved.  He cited the "if you broke it you bought it" rule, similar to Colin Powell's famous "Pottery Barn" analogy.  On the issue of staying the course in Iraq and in the region in general, I thought Governor Romney stood out because he was the only candidate I remember willing to identify the Iraq War as but one front in the struggle against radical Islam and global jihad.  I believe he was the only candidate to even mention the term jihad.  I'd like to see the other candidates talk about the wider issues of Islamic extremism and how it must be confronted.

It was clear that Mayor Giuliani is sticking to his "law and order" strategy, which is for him a good issue.  He seems to have made it a goal to bring up the decline of crime in New York City as often as possible, and even tied his defense of a previous statement welcoming illegal immigrants to New York with his desire to cut the crime rate.

Mitt Romney clearly sees Rudy as his chief rival and is seeking to draw distinctions between himself and the mayor on immigration.  I thought he did a pretty fair job of accusing Rudy of making New York a sanctuary city.  I thought Romney also spoke very convincingly about the importance of eliminating the "magnets" (sanctuary cities and accessible jobs) that entice illegal immigrants over our border.

I thought that Governor Huckabee's praise of Senator McCain's honor and military service was sincere, but also a ploy to win the approval of Granite State voters who voted for McCain in the 2000 primary and still carry a certain fondness for him.  It was good politics on the part of Huckabee.

Congressman Ron Paul didn't speak as much as rant about how just about everything the Bush Administration and the Republican Party has done in the Global War on Terror has been wrong.  I was really, really put off when Paul decried that the Republican Party has been hurt and that Republicans would go down in the Fall unless we changed course to a manner of his liking.  In a time of war, I'm not interested in hearing what may or may not be good for a political party, even if it's my own.  If the price of winning the Iraq War meant that the Republican Party would be out of power for a decade or more, I'm willing to pay it.  Governor Huckabee had a great response to Paul's accusation that the neo-cons got us into this war.  Huckabee essentially argued that whatever we do, even mistakes, we do as America, not any particular faction of Americans.  We are the United States of America, not the "Divided State of America."  So true.  In any event, if there's a polar opposite to Reaganesque optimism and appeal, it's Ron Paul.

Contrary to what the Frank Luntz focus group indicated, Senator McCain didn't really stand out for good or ill.  That pretty much goes for the rest of the candidates I haven't mentioned.  

Comments

[C.S. S.]

I didn't watch the debate, there being an important tennis match on USA! I've only heard the pundits post-debate talk, but this column is as good as any to say that the Democrats lose most every discussion on the Iraqi folly when they only talk about leaving. If they focused on the gross incompetence at which this nation with a winning tradition is accustomed, then voters would listen.

Unfortunately they have allowed Rove to peg them as quitters, appeasers, (which is totally inaccurate, but reminds us of N. Chamberlain while the neo-cons are habitually prone to err by somehow thinking Iraq is not unlike Nazi occupied Europe, but i digress) lovers of surrender, that they "just hate George Bush" and haven't figured out how to get out from under that heavy footed squashing.

The incompetence is so blatant, and only Dick Cheney and his minority see otherwise. No one seems to recall that it was Americans knocking down statues of Saddam instead of Iraqi's once we rolled into Baghdad.

The recent story in Germany adds strong credence to the notion that fighting terrorism is best done by police agencies. I recall a losing presidential candidate saying just that.