So before I begin writing about the first Republican debate, I need to apologize for not writing as promptly as possible, but the combination of Derby Day and Fight Night extended my leave of absence (more on that later).
That said, let us begin. First of all, the debate was little more than a collection of sound bites, mostly because there were 10 men on the stage and its usually hard to have an honest open debate between two politicians, let alone 5 times that many. Regardless, there were those that stood out, and those that stood out for less than positive reasons, and those whose identity we were left pondering. We'll break them into 3 categories: A) You've got a shot, B) Good try but, and C) You just wore makeup for no reason. All are middle aged white men with families (don't look so shocked).
Lets start with the A list folks. Mitt Romney out of the 10 was far and away the most composed. He never really stuttered, his thoughts were collected, and most of his ideas were centrist. Romney stood firm on Iraq, saying it was still in the nation's interest to see it through. He is for work permits for illegals, going after the terrorists (who isn't?), and was his shifty self on abortion.
This brings us to Rudy Giuliani. Rudy stood out the most of the candidates because he took a different stance. Stating that he hates abortion, he still believes that its a state matter, and that ultimately a woman should have a right to choose. He also sounded hawkish, saying that he would pursue terrorists vehemently after seeing his city hit by 9/11, and that he feels the Iraq war is winnable.
On to the next hawk, Johnny Boy McCain. While John has all the prerequisites for being a Presidential candidate, he really really needs to cut back on the caffeine, red bull, vault, whatever the hell was in his system that night. Tripping over himself more than a one legged sailor who just got booted out of the pub, McCain was the hardest to listen to. His positions were obviously engendered to evoke Ronald Reagan-esque memories, most notably when he said he would follow Osama Bin Laden to "the gates of hell." And John, when you finish a thought, don't look right back at the camera and give that cheesy grin. At least make us think you're trying to be genuine.
Now we begin with the B's.
Duncan Hunter (I know, I know, he is a long shot, but here's the difference) stood out to me for a few particular reasons, and its not just because he's from the greatest city in the world, San Diego. Number 1, he's got a son in the military (army or marines) and is in Iraq at the moment. If we're going to have a Republican running for President, that would absolutely suck the wind out of any Democratic candidate saying "oh well you don't have someone in Iraq so you're not allowed to support the war," which we all know they are absolutely BOUND to do. Basically, if his ideas and positions are exactly those of what we want in a Republican, why not take a harder look at him?
Ron Paul, representative from Texas. Before last week, I'd never even heard of this guy. Paul was very energetic, said he opposed the Iraq war because he didn't feel it was a threat, and also because the U.S. did so not in all out war fashion, but more in the phase of an "operation." Paul did gather my attention when he said he'd like to abolish the IRS, and establish the "fair" fixed rate tax, now thats Republican baby! But lets face it, thats like the kid running for class president in 3rd grade telling everyone he's gonna put chocolate milk in the water fountains....keep dreaming. He's also kinda short.
C's-and I should have mentioned earlier, any of the candidates that rose their hands stating they didn't believe in evolution got an immediate C, and its not just for not paying attention in middle school science class.
Sam Brownback-you raised your hand, automatic C.
Mike Huckabee-and you were doing reasonably well too, answering questions forthright and doing your best to be engaging, but yup, you said you didn't believe in evolution.
Tancredo-Yes, you also said you didn't believe in evolution, but you were gonna be put on this list from the beginning. Tancredo's one issue is the border and illegal immigration, and single issue candidates never succeed, so he basically turned himself into the Republican version of Dennis Kucinich (and look how well that guy has done).
Jim Gilmore-you didn't really do anything bad, but then again, you didn't really do anything good either. In a debate in which you are widely unknown, and you don't really do anything to make yourself stand out, you really don't have much of a chance of getting anywhere. Maybe you can bring some punch to the party in the next round.
Tommy Thompson-Staunch conservative, you spoke of your fiscal abilities and how you managed a centrist state like Wisconsin with responsibility and frugality. But, you're also a gruff speaking guy and about as screen savy as Dick Cheney, and Republicans need someone who is somewhat crowd pleasing at the moment. Thompson also said he wanted to emulate Jewish people and make a lot of money in life a week before the debate....haha I guess he could be a good character on South Park.
So that's my take on the first round of debates, nothing very substantive, all the candidates really had to do was not screw up, and aside from the evolution embarrassment, most managed to do so. Overall, I'm actually quite positive on the whole situation. Mostly because none of the men on stage bickered or pointed fingers, they spoke about Republican values such as low taxes, beating the crap out of terrorists, and sensible immigration policies. That is honestly what I think Americans want right now. If we look at what happened in France today (wait! Its not a joke, keep reading I promise) we see that the pro-American, pro-Capitalist conservative Nikolas Sarkozy won against his socialist female rival Segolene Royal. Why should this matter? Because Sarkozy is from the same party as the wildly unpopular current President of France, Jacques Chirac. If we can take anything from what our French buddies just showed us, its that an unpopular President does not make a failure out of his entire party. Republicans should study this like Martha Stewart studies a baked ham. Stick to your guns (in the fight against Islamic fascism/terrorism, literally), keep taxes down (the market and economy are rockin' right now, remind folks of that), and don't make scapegoats out of the illegals across the border. If you don't, you might actually lose the Presidency of the United States to a man who's been in the Senate for 2 years tops, another Senator who says she's from Chicago, Arkansas, and New York all at the same time, or unthinkably some ex Senator who pays $400 for a haircut and talks about the "two Americas." To all the Republican candidates, do not let that happen, because if you do, Kriplekistanis all over the world will rejoice.
That said, let us begin. First of all, the debate was little more than a collection of sound bites, mostly because there were 10 men on the stage and its usually hard to have an honest open debate between two politicians, let alone 5 times that many. Regardless, there were those that stood out, and those that stood out for less than positive reasons, and those whose identity we were left pondering. We'll break them into 3 categories: A) You've got a shot, B) Good try but, and C) You just wore makeup for no reason. All are middle aged white men with families (don't look so shocked).
Lets start with the A list folks. Mitt Romney out of the 10 was far and away the most composed. He never really stuttered, his thoughts were collected, and most of his ideas were centrist. Romney stood firm on Iraq, saying it was still in the nation's interest to see it through. He is for work permits for illegals, going after the terrorists (who isn't?), and was his shifty self on abortion.
This brings us to Rudy Giuliani. Rudy stood out the most of the candidates because he took a different stance. Stating that he hates abortion, he still believes that its a state matter, and that ultimately a woman should have a right to choose. He also sounded hawkish, saying that he would pursue terrorists vehemently after seeing his city hit by 9/11, and that he feels the Iraq war is winnable.
On to the next hawk, Johnny Boy McCain. While John has all the prerequisites for being a Presidential candidate, he really really needs to cut back on the caffeine, red bull, vault, whatever the hell was in his system that night. Tripping over himself more than a one legged sailor who just got booted out of the pub, McCain was the hardest to listen to. His positions were obviously engendered to evoke Ronald Reagan-esque memories, most notably when he said he would follow Osama Bin Laden to "the gates of hell." And John, when you finish a thought, don't look right back at the camera and give that cheesy grin. At least make us think you're trying to be genuine.
Now we begin with the B's.
Duncan Hunter (I know, I know, he is a long shot, but here's the difference) stood out to me for a few particular reasons, and its not just because he's from the greatest city in the world, San Diego. Number 1, he's got a son in the military (army or marines) and is in Iraq at the moment. If we're going to have a Republican running for President, that would absolutely suck the wind out of any Democratic candidate saying "oh well you don't have someone in Iraq so you're not allowed to support the war," which we all know they are absolutely BOUND to do. Basically, if his ideas and positions are exactly those of what we want in a Republican, why not take a harder look at him?
Ron Paul, representative from Texas. Before last week, I'd never even heard of this guy. Paul was very energetic, said he opposed the Iraq war because he didn't feel it was a threat, and also because the U.S. did so not in all out war fashion, but more in the phase of an "operation." Paul did gather my attention when he said he'd like to abolish the IRS, and establish the "fair" fixed rate tax, now thats Republican baby! But lets face it, thats like the kid running for class president in 3rd grade telling everyone he's gonna put chocolate milk in the water fountains....keep dreaming. He's also kinda short.
C's-and I should have mentioned earlier, any of the candidates that rose their hands stating they didn't believe in evolution got an immediate C, and its not just for not paying attention in middle school science class.
Sam Brownback-you raised your hand, automatic C.
Mike Huckabee-and you were doing reasonably well too, answering questions forthright and doing your best to be engaging, but yup, you said you didn't believe in evolution.
Tancredo-Yes, you also said you didn't believe in evolution, but you were gonna be put on this list from the beginning. Tancredo's one issue is the border and illegal immigration, and single issue candidates never succeed, so he basically turned himself into the Republican version of Dennis Kucinich (and look how well that guy has done).
Jim Gilmore-you didn't really do anything bad, but then again, you didn't really do anything good either. In a debate in which you are widely unknown, and you don't really do anything to make yourself stand out, you really don't have much of a chance of getting anywhere. Maybe you can bring some punch to the party in the next round.
Tommy Thompson-Staunch conservative, you spoke of your fiscal abilities and how you managed a centrist state like Wisconsin with responsibility and frugality. But, you're also a gruff speaking guy and about as screen savy as Dick Cheney, and Republicans need someone who is somewhat crowd pleasing at the moment. Thompson also said he wanted to emulate Jewish people and make a lot of money in life a week before the debate....haha I guess he could be a good character on South Park.
So that's my take on the first round of debates, nothing very substantive, all the candidates really had to do was not screw up, and aside from the evolution embarrassment, most managed to do so. Overall, I'm actually quite positive on the whole situation. Mostly because none of the men on stage bickered or pointed fingers, they spoke about Republican values such as low taxes, beating the crap out of terrorists, and sensible immigration policies. That is honestly what I think Americans want right now. If we look at what happened in France today (wait! Its not a joke, keep reading I promise) we see that the pro-American, pro-Capitalist conservative Nikolas Sarkozy won against his socialist female rival Segolene Royal. Why should this matter? Because Sarkozy is from the same party as the wildly unpopular current President of France, Jacques Chirac. If we can take anything from what our French buddies just showed us, its that an unpopular President does not make a failure out of his entire party. Republicans should study this like Martha Stewart studies a baked ham. Stick to your guns (in the fight against Islamic fascism/terrorism, literally), keep taxes down (the market and economy are rockin' right now, remind folks of that), and don't make scapegoats out of the illegals across the border. If you don't, you might actually lose the Presidency of the United States to a man who's been in the Senate for 2 years tops, another Senator who says she's from Chicago, Arkansas, and New York all at the same time, or unthinkably some ex Senator who pays $400 for a haircut and talks about the "two Americas." To all the Republican candidates, do not let that happen, because if you do, Kriplekistanis all over the world will rejoice.
Comments