THE TYGRRRR EXPRESS

Ok, I am now going to quote Popeye the Sailor Man. That’s all I can stands, and I can’t stands no more.

http://americannonsense.com/?p=1399

http://tncva.wordpress.com/2007/12/12/democrat-moderated-gop-debate-in-iowa/

http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2007/12/12/fred-gets-it/

http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/12/12/fred-not-playing-schoolmarms-g/index.html

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/12/13/digging-deeper-the-enviro-nitwit-ization-of-the-gop/ 

I have always maintained that the republicans were adults, and that their debates would be serious discussions. I have also maintained that the democrats were a bunch of children, and that their debates would be nonsense.

The whole debate process is nonsense. It is fluff. It should be treated like Iran and Syria…it should cease to exist in its current form, and be blown up completely and rebuilt from scratch.

A valid argument can be made that the republican party cannot be faulted for the fact that a hostile media that hates their collective conservative guts asks questions that are stupid, biased, or both, or plants “undecided” citizens to do likewise. That argument does not cut it. The republicans need to start fighting back hard.

Dick Cheney accurately pointed out that Kerry and Edwards could not be trusted to stand up to Al Queda because they could not stand up to the Deaniacs. Yet republicans are so scared to look like crybabies that they allow themselves to be in dog shows, and then lament that they are treated like dogs. Attacking the moderators and the format is wrong when it is fair and tough, such as with Tim Russert. Yet if the format actually is unjust, go after it.

Former NFL football coach Bill Parcells was a master at this. He would wait impatiently for a pinhead reporter to finish, look at them, and say, “That is a stupid question.” The reason why he got away with this is because he was a proven winner, and in most cases, it was a stupid question. Being combative is allowed if it is justified, and the combative person is right. That is what separates surliness from justified exasperation with nonsense. The republican candidates need to stop being so gracious towards those wishing them electoral harm.

For one thing, the democratic debate excludes Kucinich and Gravel. I agree with this, and have repeatedly said that the clowns need to leave the stage or be removed by the hook. The republicans not only kept the dwarves, but added another one. Alan Keyes has entered the building.

Alan Keyes? Is this a joke? Well, yes, it now is a complete and utter joke.

For the sake of full disclosure, I was an Alan Keyes admirer back in 1992. His speech at the 1992 republican convention was one for the ages. He could have been a star in the republican party. He also endeared himself to Michael Moore of all people when he was the only presidential candidate to accept Moore’s dare to jump into a mosh pit. Moore remains a wretched individual, but seeing the crowd carrying Alan Keyes in the air, while not dignified, was actually funny.

Yet Alan Keyes never reached more than 1% in the polls when running for President. He then out of nowhere decided to challenge Barack Obama for the senate seat in Illinois even though he was from Maryland. Yes, it worked for a woman who shall remain nameless, but it was pointless, especially when Dr. Keyes went off the rails and made bizarre charges about Mr. Obama that only made himself look like a wingnut.

For him to enter the race at this late stage, absent any groundswell of support, is bordering on the insane. It was a circus before he got there, but more importantly, he does not bring anything to the debate besides fiery speaking skills. His main passion on the stump is moral issues, mainly abortion. Mike Huckabee, and even Fred Thompson, have this covered. If there was a vacuum, that would be one thing, but there is not.

Carolyn Washburn, the moderator for this excuse of a debate, forgot that it was not about her. Aside from looking like the school librarian that we all wanted to paddle if she would only let her hair down and toss off those glasses, she had no redeeming qualities.

Once it was announced that Iraq would not be part of the debate, a main rationale for even having the debate died. If the news in Iraq was bad, you can guarantee it would be included. Anyway, the schoolmarm continued, and I forced myself to get through it.

The first question was intelligent, and legitimate. The candidates were asked if the country’s financial situation, specifically the debt, presented a security risk. This good question deserved good answers, but the candidates were told to limit their answers to 30 seconds. I was hoping at least one of the serious candidates would take off their microphone and walk off the stage and say, “I don’t have time for this nonsense, I am going campaigning.” It would be bold, risk…and right.

As for the question, Rudy Giuliani answered the question solidly, and differentiated between economic security and national security. Duncan Hunter brought up the trade deficit. Ron Paul gave an unequivocal yes, and brought up the crisis of the dollar, and then as usual railed against foreign U.S. policy. Tom Tancredo brought up dependence on foreign oil. In all fairness, neither Rupaul nor Tancredo went bonkers early on. Fred Thompson mentioned the trade deficit with China, and mentioned his own social security plan. He also stated that we need to increase military spending, winning him points for having guts to express a view not popular with many Americans. Romney offered pablum, saying nothing. Huckabee also gave a definitive yes, stating that America must feed, fuel, and fight for ourselves. John McCain mentioned that increasing taxes is not the answer, and connected the price of oil to funding terrorists. He stated that he would make us oil independent in five years without stating how.

I genuinely wanted to hear if Alan Keyes would add or detract. He can speak calmly, but he can also give thunderous speeches Al Pacino style. He was not awful on the first answer, but abolishing the income tax is not a serious proposal because it will not get implemented. At least he was calm.

Thompson, Huckabee and Giuliani did the best in that round, Romney the worst (again, I am ignoring the dwarves).

The next question was also good, as some of the candidates were asked what sacrifices Americans should make to help lower America’s debt. JFK was famous for his “ask not what your country can do for you” line. It is still valid today.

Giuliani ducked the question by saying the problem was not the American people, but Washington spending. Rupaul said it was unnecessary for the people to sacrifice. Huckabee said we should do things differently, which was not the same as sacrifice.

The next question asked some of the candidates which programs if any were so important that it would justify running a deficit. The answer is simple. Winning the War on Terror and funding the military to do it is worth it. Nothing else comes close.

Romney ducked the question by saying that we could just eliminate what is unimportant. Tancredo said we should follow the Constitution, which had nothing to do with anything. Thompson nailed it perfectly. The military and the security of our people was first, and he also brought up infrastructure, as well as research and development. He eloquently stated that he refused to believe that Americans today were so selfish that they would allow the next generation to get hit with the collapse of social security.

Thompson clearly won the round.

The next question was the first stupid question. The candidates were asked who is paying more than their fair share of taxes relative to everyone else. They were given 15 seconds each to try and basically defend why overtaxing wealthy and productive people is wrong.

Alan Keyes nailed it perfectly by stating it was a question meant to embarrass. He did go on too long after that, but he earned the first “guts points” of the night. McCain danced around the question, mentioning payroll taxes. Huckabee danced likewise, mentioning the fair tax. Romney pandered. Thompson got folksy at Romney’s expense, and did so successfully by saying he hoped to one day be in Mitt Romney’s tax bracket. When Romney tried to respond, Thompson replied that Romney was getting to be a pretty good actor. This did not offer substance, but in terms of debating points it was masterful. Tancredo mentioned the fair tax, Rupaul mentioned the inflation tax, and I confess he did so eloquently and intelligently. Hunter mentioned the money spent preparing taxes, which was interesting, but a trickle of an issue. Giuliani got off a great line when he said he wanted to give the death penalty to the death tax.

Style points went to Thompson and Giuliani, but I am shocked that I had to give the round to Alan Keyes and Rupaul. Rupaul is a lunatic on foreign policy, but on this one question I give him his due. I chalk it up to the blinking VCR theory, being right twice a day. McCain seemed invisible, and Romney again did not answer the question well.

In a bizarre twist, the candidates were asked to give 30 second statements on anything. I have heard of opening and closing statements, but at the end of the first quarter? It turns out these statements were to be staggered throughout the debate, amking even less sense in terms of logical flow.

McCain reaffirmed his foreign policy credentials, judgment and experience. He stated that his one guiding principle was to keep America safe. Hunter mentioned a strong national defense, securing the borders, and bringing back high paying manufacturing jobs. He mentioned his accomplishments, but seemed less powerful than McCain in an intangible way.

The next question dealt with keeping foreign markets open while protecting good paying American jobs. Yes, it was a ludicrous question designed to look almost cerebral, but it was a way of trying to have cake and eat it as well, directly in contrast with the more realistic sacrifice question. Open markets do hurt American producers, but they help consumers.

Ron Paul (I vowed to stop calling him Rupaul every time he answers a question in a normal manner) started out well by supporting free trade, but then reverted back to form by saying we should trade with Cuba. Actually, reverted back to form is harsh. He was not going off of the rails, I merely disagreed with him. He then mentioned that we are damaging the dollar. He really was making sense. Romney reaffirmed his credentials as a business executive, and again did not take a clear stand. He looks presidential, but his answer was vague. We should not put up trade barriers, but we should reexamine trade deals. Some candidates favor free trade, some are protectionist. With Romney, who is normally a free-trader, on this answer I could not tell. Huckabee got off a great line about not being able to part the red sea, but could part the red tape. He mentioned the problem of excessive litigation.

McCain alone was asked if trade deals should be altered based on human rights issues. I knew none of the candidates would have the guts to say “absolutely not,” but a guy can dream. McCain called himself the biggest free marketer you will ever see, and vowed to eliminate ethanol subsidies. He stated that a person cannot claim to be a fiscal conservative while supporting such subsidies. In the heart of Iowa farm country, he wins guts points hands down.

I wish the other candidates had been asked that question, but McCain won the round. Ron Paul also did well, ad while the bar for him is so low to begin with, I cannot deny that he was performing well, for the first tme in any of the debates. Romney continued to flounder.

The next question dealt with changes to Nafta. Giuliani praised Nafta and stated it needed to be enforced. He again reemphasized a global economy and free trade. Thompson praised Nafta, but made it clear other nations need to play fair and not close their markets to American farmers. Tancredo acted like himself, stating NAFTA was a disaster. Hunter pointed out the negative aspects with NAFTA in a saner way than Tancredo. Even though Hunterdisagreed with Giuliani and Thompson, all three of them did fine.

Ron Paul then delivered his statement. Maybe he was tired, or maybe he was replaced with an almost sane twin brother, but he kept harping on the economy, refusing to rail about illegal wars and global imperialism. Thompson used his to discuss national security. He looked tough, stern, and absolutely presidential.

The global warming question could have been valuable. The moderator wanted to know if it was a threat, and caused by human activity. The problem is she wanted a yes or no show of hands, when elaborate answers would have been totally valid. I again did not expect any of the candidates to have the guts to say no, even on the second part, but at least let them answer. What happened next was remarkable.

Fred Thompson had announced that he was not doing hand shows. Yes, some guts points in a big way, and a couple of the other candidates started to clap, probably wishing they had thought of it first. It was not walking off the stage, but it was still solid. The moderator then asked him to answer the question. The exchange was fabulous.

Thompson: “Are you going to give me a minute to answer it?”

Moderator: “No, I’m not.”

Thompson: “Well then I’m not going to answer it.”

The crowd went wild.

Romney asked for 30 seconds, and the moderator again said no. The bottom line is that by asking less questions in terms of quantity, it does allow for better answers in terms of quality (the same argument for eliminating some candidates from the stage altogether).

Thompson then stated that she wanted a mere show of hands, and he was not giving it to her. Fred Thompson, meet Bill Parcells. Nice job. To quote Stephen Colbert, Thompson truly was an Alpha Dog on that one.

McCain said global warming was real, and so did Giuliani. Giuliani said humans contributed to it, but when Hunter interjected, Giulinai stated that contributing did not mean totally. McCain said totally. Hunter disagreed.

When asked what economic impact would be acceptable to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Romney mentioned getting off of foreign oil, but stated global warming was an issue. He was starting to drift, as he had done the whole night, but then rescued himself ina big way by stating that global warming should not be America’s problem alone. We must be independent and act unilaterally in our best interests. He had been floundering the whole night, but nailed that one well.

Alan Keyes was then asked about it, which reminded me that he was actually in the room. It had been so long since he had spoken. He babbled and did slip into Al Pacino mode, going nowhere near even answering the question. It was ridiculous, but it allowed Fred Thompson to again make the crowd laugh by interjecting that he totally agreed with Alan Keyes’s position on global warming. It was brilliant. Fred got to totally duck the question, announce that agreed with someone who ignored the question, and come out smelling like a rose. Keyes continued to filibuster, getting in a good line about the hot air of politicians, but it was too little, too late.

The moderator then testily stated that the next question would probably not have Iowans allow them to avoid answering. Yes, it is frustrating when candidates filibuster, but the moderator crossed the line from strict to rude. Again, it is not about her. Let the voters decide if a candidate is rambling. The question itself dealt with whether automobile mandates should take place even if it drives up livestock costs for feed and force people into buying flexible fuel cars. The key part of the question dealt with mandates.

Huckabee also seemed to be invisible, but he would not directly answer whether increasing mandates made sense. Hunter said the answer was incentives, not mandates. Tancredo agreed, and in a calm manner.

Romney did well, and there were no disasters outside of Dr. Keyes in this round, but Thompson simply stole the show on this question.

Tancredo statement, shockingly enough, was about illegal immigration. Before the debate started, the moderator announced it would not be a topic. This made Tancredo irrelevant even to the few that did not already feel that way. The issue has been discussed ad nauseum, and unlike Iraq, deserved the night off. Huckabee used his statement to ramble about the founding fathers.

The debate shifted to education, and what standards should be implemented.

McCain said we needed more choice and competition. He also mentioned home schooling and merit pay for teachers. He was solid. Giuliani mentioned that choices should be made by parents, not school systems, yet seemed less powerful on this one than McCain. Hunter brilliantly brought up Jaime Escalante, the hero behind the movie “Stand and Deliver.” It was an example of a guy ducking the question, yet still coming across as a winner. When the moderator pointed out that Mr. Escalante no longer was a teacher, Hunter was very prepared, answering that he got fed up, and that the unions drove him out. I have no idea if this is true, but it was a clear winner of an answer unless proven otherwise.

Romney defended No Child Left Behind, earning him guts points. He mentioned President Bush by name, while other candidates cower about this. I have to give him credit for that. He also mentioned English immersion. Huckabee wanted to tailor education to what the students want, a terrible idea. He claims students are bored. Who cares?

Keyes then took issue with the moderator when she tried to shift gears, demanding to answer the education question. He was combative with the moderator, and she backed down. His point of bringing God back into the schools was overshadowed by his completely going off of the rails. People used to clap wildly after his stemwinders. This audience did not. Dr. Keyes was going ballistic on the one night that Ron Paul and Tancredo were less crazy than usual. He also tried to be the values candidate in a race that had Huckabee. Huckabee says similar things, but in a quiet, calm, self effacing manner. To try and question Hukabees credentials on issues that appeal to social conservaitves is ludicrous, and Keyes got nowhere.

Ron Paul came out against No Child Left Behind, and emphasized local control, tax credits, and parental control. Thompson went after the National Education Association. He was earning major guts points. It is one thing to go after the mafia and terrorists, but taking on teachers’ unions is risky. He clearly connected the dots as to why choice helps everybody, especially the low income students. Tancredo is a former schoolteacher, which I did not know. However, when Tancredo went after Huckabee, Huckabee calmly deflected him. Romney stated that he had a better record on education than Huckabee, but in a lighthearted, inoffensive way.

Thompson, McCain and Romney all did well. Giuliani was almost nonexistent, which was mainly due to the format and the questions. Hunter won the round.
The next question dealt with what the candidates would do in their first year in office.

Giuliani finally got to mention Islamic terrorism, and then mentioned illegal immigration, tax reductions, and energy independence. It was not a bad answer, but offered too much at the expense of quality. Hunter focused on strengthening the military, protecting the border, and bringing back manufacturing jobs. The moderator snidely remarked that it was a tall order for a year. I can only imagine her trying that with Hillary. Rupaul finally went nuts and babbled about ending the war, and Tancredo said within the first 5 minutes he would free the imprisoned border guards. Tancredo then mentioned we were fighting radical Islam, the first time all night anybody mentioned it. Yes, the moderator tried to leave it out of the debate, but at least Tancredo refused to allow that. Thompson mentioned cracking down on activist judges, and forcefully stated that if congress did not go along, he would go over their head to the American people. Some see that as dictatorship, but he clearly meant in terms of popularity, which Reagan excelled at. Nobody had mentioned Reagan at all, and this might have been his subtle way of doing so. Then again, maybe it was not. Romney wanted to end global jihad, and then ticked off a laundry list. Huckabee then called it a laundry list five seconds after I wrote that. Huckabee focused on uniting people. McCain emphasized making America safe. He said he wanted to bring trust back to government, and said there was none today. This does not go over well with republicans. Keyes said he would restore moral sovereignty. He then droned on and on.

Shockingly enough, Hunter and Tancredo won the round, but only by default. Nobody was impressive.

Romney’s personal statement was a rump kissing of the Iowa people. Keyes mentioned the republican party betraying its core principals. Giuliani calmly played to his strength, that being problems requiring bold leadership, and mentioned his time as a U.S. Attorney. This reminded people it was not all 9/11. Giuliani did well.

Then some videos were shown of the candidates speaking on various topics. Why this was necessary is a mystery to everybody except for the moderator. Ron Paul finds the internet “delightful,” probably because it allows people to know who he is.

The moderator then asked about openness in government, leading to the first attack question, that being about Giuliani’s wife having a security detail while they were dating. Giuliani stated that his government was transparent, and everybody knew everything he ever did. Keyes stated people should be authentic, and knocked Romney on this point, as well as criticizing Giuliani on abortion. Givena chance to respond, Romney deftly stated that he was not sure. It garnered laughs. One should only respond to attacks that can be taken seriously, and anything from Alan Keyes was best left undignified.

When Romney discussed his journey to becoming pro-life, he finally became the first to invoke Reagan, as well as Henry Hyde and George Herbert Walker Bush. It came across as less pandering than had he only invoked Reagan, since invoking Bush Senior does not win hearts. It was skillfully done. Giuliani reiterated his pro-choice position, and invoked laughs by saying that even though Keyes would not vote for him, he would not change.

The next question then dealt with when it was necessary to disagree with available intelligence. Thompson got in another subtle dig at the moderator when he stated that this was the most important question asked today. Given that the debate was over half over, it was an effective dig. Unlike Keyes, Thompson was able to be combative in a way that made him seem dignified, not self righteous or angry. He also stated that people no longer have confidence in our intel industry anymore. He stated the British and Israelis are ahead of us, and that we cannot let a piece of paper by a bureaucrat solely determine what his actions must be.

More pointless videos were shone. Then Huckabee was asked about how his religious faith would impact health care and education. He answered the question well, although it was a stupid question that did not deserve answering.

Romney was asked whether it was more important to be a fiscal or social conservative. I am biased on this one because I am a fiscal conservative. Then again, it is most important to be a foreign policy conservative. Romney ducked, invoking Reagan again. This time it was pandering. At least he mentioned foreign policy conservatives. Hunter reiterated Romney’s answer, and then tried to go after Romney by stating his business dealt with China. It was pointless and ineffective.

Romney’s video mentioned judges, but with much less passion than Thompson expressed earlier. Tancredo’s video made no sense, and Thompson’s video was quiet but cerebral, emphasizing leaving a better world.

Giuliani, McCain and Thompson had the best videos. Romney and Huckabee did not.

Tancredo was challenged on his foreign policy credentials, and he did not hurt or help himself. Ron Paul was asked about his sweeping change proposals, but insisted he did not call himself a revolutionary. McCain was asked an example of when he wished he had compromised instead of holding firm on his ideals. McCain said he could not think of one example, and stated he had the most legislative achievements of anyone on stage. It was not a humble moment for him.

An idiotic question was asked about New Years resolutions. Even 15 seconds each was too much. Their resolutions was most likely to win Iowa January 3rd and New Hampshire 5 days later. This might have been one of the dumbest questions ever asked, because the candidates were to suggest resolutions for their opponents.

There comes a time when no matter how beautiful a woman is, and this woman was not a model (not ugly either), that a man cannot handle one more word. I wanted to clip her mouth shut with a potato chip clip, but perhaps having a spoiled bag of chips would be too high a price. Except for “The View,” dumber television has not existed.

Only Tancredo took the bait. McCain was very impressive in stating that he wanted everyone to raise the level of discourse. He was too polite to include the moderator. Huckabee echoed the discourse line. Romney was also superb in stating that they should all promise to rally around the nominee to make sure a democrat did not win. Thompson again found a way to ignore a question and still look good by vowing to be a better husband and father, which is especially nice in that nobody has questioned otherwise. Tancredo went after Huckabee for flip flopping on immigration. Ron Paul and Hunter added little but did not harm, and Giuliani stated that a sense of optimism was in order, America had so many positives that should be recognized.

The biggest loser of this debate was the moderator for not allowing the candidates to engage each other, instead focusing on only lightning rounds.

Alan Keyes was the biggest disaster, and I confess that Ron Paul and Tancredo, while still irrelevant, were not looney. Hunter did not help or harm himself.

Romney, despite flashes of brilliance, had too many bad moments, not in the form of stumbles or gaffes, but meaningless answers. He is smart, and looks presidential, but just did not offer substance in this debate.

Giuliani, Huckabee and McCain were adequate enough, but none of them had enough time. Giuliani especially was shafted in terms of questions and time allotted.

This debate had a clear winner by a landslide…Fred Thompson.

eric

This entry was posted on Thursday, December 13th, 2007 at 10:21 am 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.