THE TYGRRRR EXPRESS

The republicans had another debate, and it was held at 7am, when most children, aka democrats, were sleeping. For the sake of ethics, I slept in today, which thankfully tivo allows me to do.

I will not be giving a point by point recap because no new ground was broken. However, what was true over the last several years is still true. Democrats hold Seinfeld debates about nothing, while republicans are busy having adult discussions about adult issues that actually matter.

https://tygrrrrexpress.com/2007/07/the-seinfeld-network-seinfeld-party-had-a-seinfeld-debate/

I will not spend any time discussing Duncredo Thompaulbackbee, because while they are still for the most part more relevant than the democratic kids, Ronald Reagan is more relevant than Walter Mondale, and neither of them are serious candidates this year. Giuliani, McCain and Romney had another substantive discussion, and as shocked as I am to admit this, George Stephanopolous failed to be unfair. Also, the democrats were barely mentioned, because again, this was a discussion about what was relevant.

https://tygrrrrexpress.com/2007/05/guliani-mccain-romney-and-the-seven-dwarfs/

https://tygrrrrexpress.com/2007/05/the-7-republican-dwarfs-continue/

There were very few questions, which allowed for a focus on quality over quantity. The focus was on the candidates, not the questioners. Nobody yelled, “Wassup!” or brought up Fred Thompson.

The debate started with the obligatory question about abortion. Giuliani, McCain and Romney have differing views, but they are all respectful of each other. Republicans who are pro-life are seen as intolerant, but it is the democrats that do not allow pro-lifers to have a voice. Most people do not know that Harry Reid is pro-life, because he is all but banned from discussing it. Republicans disagree, very respectfully so in the debate.

A biased question came in about how to end the war. I would prefer a question be asked about if we should end the war, but the left still does not grasp that assuming the conclusion in the question disrespects those that dare to disagree. McCain offered a ringing defense of the surge. Giuliani pointed out that no democrat mentioned Islamic terrorism in four debates, and Romney had a great line at the expense of Barack Obama. He stated that Obama wants to “sit down with our enemies and bomb our friends. He has changed from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove.”

When asked if they would raise taxes on cigarettes to pay for health care, the candidates all ducked the question. Tancredo boldly stated that it is not the government’s responsibility to make sure people have health care. It is easy to take politically untenable positions when one is not a top tier candidate.

Obama’s inane comments regarding Pakistan were the subject of respectful but significant disagreement. Giuliani stated that Obama phrased it badly, but that Pakistan has not been all that helpful. As somebody who finds Giuliani to be right more often than not, I was surprised by this statement. He spoke about seeking Pakistan’s permission before going in. While his reasoning is sound, the words, “ask permission” can be manipulated to come across as a “global test” comment that sank a democrat in 2004. Nobody would have credibility attacking Giuliani on this issue, but it was an opening. Romney got it right, reminding us that Pakistan is our friend. Musharraf is under constant pressure, and he can only do so much. He condemned Obama’s remarks again.

The question about supporting the Bush Doctrine of spreading democracy (the preemptive strike question is the heart of the doctrine, and was not asked) separated again the contenders from the pretenders. Giuliani agreed with it, emphasizing that stability has to come before democracy. McCain agreed, and emphasized that all options including nuclear weapons were on the table. Romney pointed out in agreement that we were attacked first, and that we need to spread “modernity.” Tancredo defended an idiotic statement about bombing Mecca and Medina, although when pointed out that the State Department condemned the remark, he claimed that this gave him even more reason to support it. The State Department, for once, is right.

The Minnesota tragedy was brought up in the form of the candidates being asked if they would support higher gasoline taxes to fix infrastructure. This was where the main republican candidates shined. Questioner David Yepsen of the Iowa Des Moines Register could barely contain his anger when Giuliani forcefully stated that taxes should be lowered to bring in more revenues, and that liberals are wrong on taxes. Romney correctly pointed out that the key to everything is growth. Growing the economy is not done through raising taxes. McCain pointed out that wasteful spending in the form of earmarks has to stop. He promised to do this, but “logrolling,” is at the heart of getting things done, so I am not sure how he would succeed in this endeavor. However, cutting spending beats raising taxes.

The question about reducing the power of the Vice President was a not so thinly veiled criticism of Dick Cheney. McCain ducked the question. Giuliani defended President Bush, and Romney defended both Bush and Cheney.

The question about replacing the income tax with a “FAIR” tax, aka a national sales tax, again separated the top tier candidates from the also rans. It is easy to offer radical solutions when trailing in the polls. The top candidates simply offered more responsible answers. Some would call this being timid, but bold does not always mean practical. Romney stated that the FAIR tax was not the end all be all, and Giuliani felt the change would be too complex at this stage in history. McCain had the best answer. He vowed to eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax, and would defer to Alan Greenspan on any tax plan. Asking the best and brightest for advice and then following their advice can only be done if one allows their ego to give way to common sense. McCain should be commended for following a plan that has been mostly successful for the last two decades.

The media loves to hear republicans admit their mistakes. I wonder if they would ever ask the democrats this question. McCain mentioned a tactical decision in war in 1967 that led to him and his men being imprisoned, as well as his meeting with people that led to the “Keating 5” scandal. His admitting such mistakes is what integrity is about, although I personally feel he owed nobody an apology for his war decisions. Romney apologized for once being pro-choice, which should put the abortion issue to bed for him. Giuliani provided humor by stating that there was not enough time to list all his mistakes. This was brilliant because it allowed him to admit that he was flawed without giving any specifics that could be used against him later, which was the entire point of the question.

When asked what they would restore to the Oval Office (President Bush promised to restore honor and dignity, and succeeded), the major candidates were uneasy because they had little desire to criticize President Bush. The bottom tier candidates had no such restraint, since they need media attention, and bashing the President gains headlines. Romney wants a stronger military, economy and family structure. McCain wants a stronger focus on Radical Islam. Giuliani offers hope, optimism and experience.

The winners of this debate were Giuliani, McCain and Romney.

The losers of this debate were many. First of all, it includes the 7 Dwarfs, aka the remaining republican candidates. Nothing changed about this race. Hillary Clinton in a way lost out as well because she was considered too irrelevant to be even mentioned. This is a positive development for those who prefer skill to shrill. John Edwards was barely mentioned in passing in a remark that was barely audible, because again, this was a debate of substance. Fred Thompson may have lost by not being there and not being mentioned. Time will tell.

Besides the big three republican candidates that were there, the political process was a big winner in this debate. It was dignified, classy, intelligent, and substantive. There was not one question about gay marriage, global warming, Darfur, reparations for slavery, or other heart wrenching questions that affect virtually everybody equally in terms of insignificance.

This was not a debate for a narrow collection of special interest groups. This was not children doling out candy to other children. It was an adult discussion about the defining issue of our time, the struggle against Islamofacism.

Soon enough, a 90 minute debate between only Giuliani, McCain, Romney and Fred Thompson will allow for even more intelligent discussion.

eric

This entry was posted on Sunday, August 5th, 2007 at 6:07 pm and is filed under POLITICS. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.