Comments on: New Hampshire Debates

By: Black Shards, In Your Eyes, Blinding » Huckabee Would Repeal Birthright Citizenship

Tue, 08 Jan 2008 19:10:50 +0000

[...] commented about his apparent change of heart after the Fox debate, thinking aloud that Huckabee needed to simply tell the truth, which is that he is now running on a [...]

By: kreiz

kreiz — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 12:24:50 +0000

Also Mac’s snark & condescension won’t hurt him too much in NH. Any state with live free or die on its license plates can handle it.

By: kreiz

kreiz — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 12:22:40 +0000

First, sashal’s right- the debate format was excellent, as was Gibson as moderator.

If (Obama) was a fiscal conservative I could see myself falling under his spell. But alas… Yep. I’m a fiscal con and I find myself falling. He’s left on issues but moderate in tone- a deadly combo- sort of a Reagan-in-reverse.

By: sashal

sashal — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 12:08:30 +0000

I think this was the best debate format .
Many could finally make a real personal distinction between the candidates.
I think Romney came out as a winner, despite constant attacks on him.
He was very good at explaining the health care plan, and was clear and resolute on other issues. He also stayed away from personal attacks.
Thompson and McCain looked old and tired and did not say much new at all( McCain I think hurt himself, being snark and condescending).
R.Paul was very timid and his foreign policy arguments sounded too shallow.
Rudy was good, when not attacking Islamo-fascists.
Huckabee was very vague( may be that was a deliberate tactic)

And all their rhetoric about supporting the invasion of Iraq and president’s decision in lieu of 9/11 and Islamic terrorism could have been done with one simple question(shame on Gibson):
"What the hell Iraq had to do with 9/11 and islamo-fascism" But nobody asked that, so they all escaped once again with this lie( even R.Paul did not ask that question)

By: Xel

Xel — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 09:31:47 +0000

"Is this what is known as a non sequitur?"

You’ll find the part you quoted in Webster’s if you look up non sequitur. But hey, fear means you have to be agressive and staying in Iraq for the hell of it (emphasis on hell) apparently means you are ready to go the distance, do the deed, walk the line, take a stand and some other useless quip spoken in the timber of Michael Ironside.

"Co-opting the "change" theme is probably not going to work for her."

I love to see how quickly the establishment candidate dropped her "pragmatic, sensible and centrist" image.

By: ChrisWWW

ChrisWWW — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 07:55:26 +0000

Interestingly, the point that experts believe that there is a 30% chance that there will be a nuclear attack carried out by terrorists on American soil within 10 years was impressed upon the Democrats who, to a (wo)man, still insist on pulling American troops out of Iraq.

Is this what is known as a non sequitur?

This can only play in the Republicans’ favor as they are the party of the military and defense. Democrats call this a culture of fear and paranoia. I disagree. A 30% chance of New York going up in flames is something to concerned about. Just because Rudy and crew are paranoid doesn’t mean that someone’s not out to get us.

You realize that Americans (according to polling) trust the Democrats more on security and on other defense issues like the Iraq war? This issue only helps the Republicans if they make a solid case for what will make us safer. Rudy’s constant reptition of "offense" makes little sense in a complex world where *gasp* terrorists can bomb Iraq, Afghanistan and the U.S.A. at the same time. So maybe a bit of paranoia is necessary, but it should lead to logical policy decisions, not knee jerk responses like "double Gitmo," and waterboarding and the invasion of Iraq.

And please, can we quit with the Edwards haircut nonsense? When’s the last time you mentioned Romney’s $300 makeup consulting and whatnot?
======
My own thoughts, quickly:
1) Romney impressed me tonight. He gave thoughtful answers and seems to have a clear grasp of actual policy. His points about healthcare blew the rest of the field out of the water.
2) Huckabee was barely there (although speaking well, without much substance) while Thompson just repeated Republican free market mantras
3) Rudy makes sense when he isn’t talking about terrorism and 9/11 and Iraq. He does seem thoughtful about domestic politics, it’s too bad he sold out to the extreme right wing
4) Paul came out ahead everytime someone tried to attack him, both Thompson, McCain and Rudy looked petty with their shots at the doctor

5) Edwards came across very well, I agree with Marc. But the more I listen to him, the less I see a substantive difference between him and Obama. Anyways, I would like to see an Obama/Edwards ticket in November
6) Clinton came across tired and defeated (maybe it has something to do with her huge drop in the polls). Co-opting the "change" theme is probably not going to work for her. Everyone knows she does not represent the kind of change that Edwards and Obama offer.
7) Richardson’s a good guy, but repititive.

By: redfish

redfish — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 07:41:31 +0000

I think several analyses of the Democratic debate are missing that Hillary is really the one who started the fight with her rivals; where Edwards joined in with Obama just to defend him. Of course, one could say thats fair, because Hillary doesn’t want to let this "change" message go uncontested. But she came off like an old goat who sounded like she was questioning how these upstart candidates could even think about running and challenging her. Not that I don’t think Edwards or Obama are a little empty, but it must be an insult to many of their supporters, as she’s not really an alternative to them, but part of the problem. I think the debates were an overall loss for her.

On the Republican side, I think just as equally people are missing that McCain’s attacks on Romney looked as if they were done defensively, because it looked like McCain was angry Romney was misrepresenting what he did. Add to that however, pretty ugly ads McCain is running on TV, and the fact that most Republicans disagree with him on immigration which make his arguments moot. It doesn’t help McCain, but it does hurt Romney, because his faults as "the conservative candidate" are being exposed. As Ed Rollins said "everybody hates Romney"

By: Will

Will — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 07:24:31 +0000

Good write-up. Similar to what you observed about your own feelings towards Obama, I believe that he has a chance of really garnering some bipartisan support and cooperation as a potential president. However - I would very much like to see where the "30% chance of a nuclear attack" came from. I was definitely surprised when that quote came up - and I would urge caution in taking it at face value. Even if such a thing were to be true, a well-thought out strategy that looks at the bigger picture (instead of ‘hit them with a big stick in case they hit us with a big stick) will be wiser.

By: Linda

Linda — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 07:17:25 +0000

I honestly think all the Rep. Candidates acted rather "school boyish" except Ron Paul. I believe McCain’s comment to Ron Paul as he left the debate was really shameful. I, for one, am getting dissapointed in all the Republicans Candidates, except one.