The 1st GOP Debate

So I watched the GOP debate last night and must tell you - I am not terribly impressed.  It really did not change my opinion at present and did little to highlight the lessor known candidates since Chris Matthews seemed geared towards focusing on McCain, Giuliani and Romney.  I did get a better idea on Brownback and Huckabee and was actually rather impressed by Gov. Gilmore in many ways. Romney certainly did shine, but perhaps too much.  So very polished is he...it seems too good to be true.  And McCain?  I just don't trust the opportunism.  At present I still believe that Giuliani is the only one capable of beating Hillary come November of 2008, and that's the benchmark folks.

I do wonder why it is that Republicans will gladly participate in a debate from an obvious partisan angle like MSNBC and Matthews, but the Democrats cannot do the same with Fox.  I would not mind seeing them have to answer credibly on issues on which normally they get softball questions.  Regardless, there were some truly idiotic questions last night - "what do you hate about America?"  What the heck is that?  "Should we change the consitution to allow a non-native born citizen to become President?"  Could we perhaps pay attention to the war right now?  Isn't that a bit more pressing?

Thankfully, there were plenty of questions on Iraq, Iran and the larger war.  Almost all of them answered credibly except Ron Paul, and even he made his point well.  I just don't happen to agree with it.  But of course, we also had to delve into abortion and here is where most folks think Giuliani messed up.  Not me (rather it was on his immigration questions where he needs much work.)  I appreciate the way he handled the abortion question, and the way he answered it.  I am not going to get into my personal views of abortion at present, but I am a firm believer of keeping it out of the federal governments hands.  His "federalism" style answer is precisely how such a topic should be dealt with by a Presidential contender.  If only someday a nominee could go further and say "Let us have a great national discussion concerning abortion, cloning, the culture of life and morality."  I tend to think this, in the long run, will have a greater effect on lessoning abortion than simply prohibition.

Finally, it is just way too soon to be having such debates.  We won't even be seeing primaries until next year and it is not even June.  The cycle is far too early for me to get into caring one way or the other.  As it is, President Bush still has until 2008 and I am certainly more interested in how he handles the remainder of his term.  Especially with the type of opposition he is getting now.  But several of these men that spoke last night would certainly be a better President than anyone the Democrats are throwing out there.  Sorry, but if a candidate is not willing to fight Islamic terrorists, then they are not a credible candidate in my mind. 

As I have often said - if terrorism is successful in its aims, things such as social security, global warming, tax codes, pork spending, affirmative action and/or hate crimes really won't matter much anymore.  If they level New York City with a dirty nuke, I imagine we'll have much bigger fish to catch and fry, thanks very much.  When and if we find ourselves capable of solving this very big issue, then perhaps it is time to sit down and start looking at these other things.  But not until then. 

EDIT - An interesting (and I think on target) point by John Hood looking at the "optimism" angle many on the right seem irritated by this morning.  Given that it took place at Reagan's library, it had to come up.  I personally had little issue with it, but the folks over at National review have been discussing it all morning.  This is one of the better posts:

Interesting takes from everyone about the GOP debate last night, but I think focusing only on the campaigns' strategies to win Republican primary voters may result in missing a larger, important point. GOP activists and movement conservatives may feel upset or betrayed, they may want to see some anger and passion, they may even want "our" SOB to take on the enemy SOBs. But I don't see a lot of evidence to suggest that Republican primary voters as a whole have similar sentiments, and even less than swing voters do — and as 2006 showed, that latter group still matters a lot.

Look at the big story in the Democratic contest to date. It's not the tougher of the Clinton duo. It's not the expensively coiffed populist firebrand. It's Barack Obama, a candidate of freshness, fuzziness, and, well, optimism. The nutroots may not love him, but they aren't the full Democratic primary electorate. Obama represents the Democratic flavor of what many voters are probably looking for this year: a clean break, a different dynamic. The Republican flavor, I submit, should be an optimistic competence that inspires confidence. That means someone who exudes the ability to run the federal government, to avoid Katrina-like fiascoes, to plan effectively for the use of military force, and who doesn't scrape his fingernails down the Washington chalkboard. That doesn't at all mean the same thing as he who is best suited to do very bad things to very bad guys.

Indeed.  That is all.

Comments

[Easy Rider]

Good take on the debate Al. Sorry it's been a while since my last post, but I've been busy with work, school, and kids (my daughter is three now).

Anyhow, it's weird that I chose this day to come back and visit because I've been looking for someone to discuss the debate, and apparently you're the only person that even bothered to watch it.

To me, Guilianni is the only choice in this election (and this coming from a man who voted for Clinton 2X). He's the only one who had the guts to say what he really believed and didn't just ramble off the usual rhetoric (i.e. I BELIEVE in a better education for our children's future). Plus, I think it's high time we had a Wop for president.

My own political theory has basically boiled down to this.

The bureaucracy of our federal government has made it incapable of managing any program, or crisis, with any efficiency what-so-ever. Therefore, the less the federales touch, the better. They've proven time and time again through Katrina, Healthcare, Iraq, Waco, Tort reform, etc. that they have the opposite of the Midas touch, aka everything they touch turns to shit. Therefore, the less responsibility we give them the better.

Truly, our own government has become the Fredo of the United States and we should do exactly what Michael Corleone did and put them in charge of some bullshit bar in Vegas where they can't fuck up anything too important.

Gulianni is the only one who seems to get this other than the Libertarians, and Bob Barr is just too damn weird to elect President.

I hope all is well, shoot me an email sometime I'd like to go out for a beer. By the way, I sent your web page to my Dad, so if you get some bizarre post that criticizes your camping skills and lack of KP skills, you'll know who it is.

Greg

[AL Hurd]

Great to hear from you again, sir! I was just thinking of you and the wife and kid and hoping all was well. It really has been a while, hasn't it?

And I am currently on the same page as you in terms of Presidential hopefuls. Giuliani seems to have the right mix of toughness on foreign policy while not really wanting to back a great deal of domestic legislation. As you say - the more the government keeps their hands out of every day business, the better we will all be.

But I am keeping my mind open all the way around, especially considering that the first primaries won't even get under way until next year.

I do hope that Newt and Fred Thompson get into the thing, if for anything to keep the conversation moving in the right direction. The last thing the GOP and/or the general electorate needs is a bunch of Republicans trying to see who would outlaw abortion the quickest or which candidates jump over each other to present their Constitutional Amendment bonafides.

I'll definitely send you an email soon and look forward to the beer.

Later,
AL