I watch the debates — so you don’t have to

September 6, 2007

On “The Tonight Show” last night, Jay Leno asked Fred Thompson why he’d decided to skip the GOP debate in New Hampshire. “I’ll do my share, but I don’t think it’s a very enlightening forum, to tell you the truth,” Thompson said.

As it turns out, as is usually the case, Thompson was wrong. I’d love to say last night’s debate on Fox News was a farcical and ridiculous event, but the truth is, it was actually pretty engaging, as political theater goes. When it comes to substance, the event wasn’t exactly a Lincoln-Douglas showdown. And when it comes to honesty, it was more reminiscent of a Dick Cheney interview. And when it comes to stature, the event was like watching Fox News & The Eight Dwarves. But having said that, the debate was actually worth watching and had several noteworthy exchanges.

Oddly enough, the biggest applause of the night went to … Fox News’ Chris Wallace.

REP. PAUL: The people who say there will be a bloodbath are the ones who said it would be a cakewalk, it would be slam dunk, and that it would be paid for by oil. Why believe them? They’ve been wrong on everything they’ve said. Why not ask the people — (interrupted by cheers) — why not ask the people who advise not to go into the region and into the war? The war has not gone well one bit.

Yes, I would leave, I would leave completely. Why leave the troops in the region? The fact that we had troops in Saudi Arabia was one of the three reasons given for the attack on 9/11. So why leave them in the region? They don’t want our troops on the Arabian Peninsula. We have no need for our national security to have troops on the Arabian Peninsula, and going into Iraq and Afghanistan and threatening Iran is the worst thing we can do for our national security. […]

MR. WALLACE: So, Congressman Paul, and I’d like you to take 30 seconds to answer this, you’re basically saying that we should take our marching orders from al Qaeda? If they want us off the Arabian Peninsula, we should leave?

The crowd erupted. Wallace made little effort to hide his disdain for Ron Paul, but this was apparently the roundhouse punch that was supposed to knock Paul out completely. For what it’s worth, the Texas Republican responded by insisting he would take “marching orders from our Constitution,” but by that point, the other Republicans on the stage were literally laughing at Paul.

What’s more, for the first time in any debate this year (from either side), we saw some actual give and take between two candidates.

This almost started to resemble a real, live debate about competing ideas:

REP. PAUL: The American people didn’t go in. A few people advising this administration, a small number of people called the neoconservatives hijacked our foreign policy. They’re responsible, not the American people. They’re not responsible. We shouldn’t punish them.

MR. HUCKABEE: Congressman, we are one nation. We can’t be divided. We have to be one nation under God. That means if we make a mistake, we make it as a single country, the United States of America, not the divided states of America.

REP. PAUL: No. When we make a mistake — (interrupted by applause) — when we make a mistake, it is the obligation of the people through their representatives to correct the mistake, not to continue the mistake!

MR. HUCKABEE: And that’s what we do on the floor of the —

REP. PAUL: No! We’ve dug a hole for ourselves and we dug a hole for our party! We’re losing elections and we’re going down next year if we don’t change it, and it has all to do with foreign policy, and we have to wake up to this fact.

MR. HUCKABEE: Even if we lose elections, we should not lose our honor, and that is more important to the Republican Party.

REP. PAUL: We’re losing — we have lost 5,000 Americans killed in — we’ve lost over 5,000 Americans over there in Afghanistan and Iraq and plus the civilians killed. How many more do you want to lose? How long are we going to be there? How long — what do we have to pay to save face? That’s all we’re doing is saving face. It’s time we came home!

These debates are usually just one soundbite after another; this was a genuine discussion between two candidates. It was a pleasant surprise.

Random observations from my notes:

* Fred Thompson came in for some well-earned abuse. When asked about Thompson hiding from scrutiny, McCain said, “Well, I think that’s a decision that Fred should make. Maybe we’re up past his bedtime.”

* Giuliani at one point said, “[T]he reality is that I’m not running on what I did on September 11th.” Yes, he really did say that.

* A voter in a New Hampshire coffee shop told Mitt Romney, “I don’t think you fully understand how offended my wife and I were and probably the rest of the people who have sons, daughters, husbands and wives serving in the war on terror to compare your son’s attempts to get you elected to my son’s service in Iraq. (Cheers, applause.) I know you apologized a couple days later up there, a firestorm started. But it was wrong, sir, and you never should have said it.” Ouch.

* Several candidates, including McCain and Hunter, emphasized that Anbar is evidence of a successful surge. Too bad they don’t know what they’re talking about.

* Huckabee is still arguing that, when it comes to Iraq, “we broke it,” so we bought it. Isn’t that argument so 2004?

* Giuliani was asked about problems in his personal life. He said, “The reality is that I think someone’s private life, someone’s family life is something that you all look into to determine how are they going to conduct themselves in public office, and in my case, you have about 30, 35 years of experience to figure out how I would.” It sounded like a very odd answer, given his scandalous personal life, but Giuliani’s argument was basically this — my family life may be a mess, but it’s never interfered with my work before, so you have nothing to worry about.

All in all, it’s hard not to watch these Republican debates without thinking what a truly weak field this is. They are, by any reasonable measure, an unimpressive bunch, struggling to figure out how to say they’d turn America around without conceding that America needs to be turned around.

What did the voters think? I was watching online, so I didn’t see Fox News’ coverage after the debate ended, but Michael Scherer reported:

Fox cuts to Hannity, who is now, inexplicably, wearing a blue tie. Hannity introduces pollster Frank Luntz, who has a focus group of 29 Republican voters at a restaurant in New Hampshire. […]

Luntz asks the voters to raise their hands if they think the candidates exceeded their expectations. No hands get raised. He asks how many were disappointed. They all raise their hands. “This is not a good night,” Luntz concludes.

It was engaging political theater, but with this cast of characters, there are no good nights.

“So, Congressman Paul, and I’d like you to take 30 seconds to answer this, you’re basically saying that we should take our marching orders from al Qaeda?”

Anybody bother to tell Mr. Wallace that Bush/Cheney in fact did take our troops out of Saudi Arabia, just like al Qaeda ‘ordered’ them to? It really is interesting that the supporters of folks who have literally designed foreign policy to comport with the sayings and taunts of OBL do not even realize that they are doing exactly what OBL and al Qaeda want.

Morons.

  • Ron Paul gives me hope for the Republican Party. As the Democrats in the late 60s and the Republicans in the 90s taught us, the country works better when one party doesn’t totally dominate. While I hope that the Dems win sizeably in 2008, maybe that defeat will encourage the Republicans to rethink their positions.

    Or is there just something in the DC water supply that turns folks into sheep?

  • Sounds like Ron Paul continues to kick ass. I watched Thompson on Leno last night for about three minutes. That was his big announcement?! Look for Thompson’s campaign to implode by this weekend. He’s a big fat lazy idiot with absolutely nothing to offer. Absolutely nothing.

  • MR. HUCKABEE: Even if we lose elections, we should not lose our honor, and that is more important to the Republican Party.

    Didn’t they lose that with Larry Craig? Or was it the attorney general scandal? Or Foley, Miers, Katrina, Schiavo?

  • He’s a big fat lazy idiot with absolutely nothing to offer. Absolutely nothing. — Haik Bedrosian

    For anyone who doesn’t know, a few months ago Tim Russert on Meet the Press asked him what he would do if president. He said that he would do “lots of things.” When asked to elaborate, he said that he didn’t want to elaborate. He’s just a red herring, and it’s telling that he is supposed to be the white knight of the republican party.

  • Steve,

    Chris Wallace was attempting to smear Ron Paul with a loaded, leading, BS question. To even assert that Chris Wallace’s question was noteworthy, shows your bias. Furthermore, from my account – the erruption of appluse followed Ron Paul’s response to Chris’ smear attempt. Not one of the front runners answered a question straight, all danced around the questions and never answered them. You are right though, the only thing that resembled a debate was the chance encounter between Huckabee and Paul. I have yet to make a decision on who I will vote for in the GOP primaries, as I live in an open state. However, I am more certain than ever that it won’t be a top candidate. Rather, it will be for a person like Huckabee or Paul. A person who can stand up and answer directly what is asked of them. Your attempt to smear Ron Paul, actually paints the man in a better position to me. You should leave your obvious, personal biases out of “your account,” if you ever expect me or others to take what you have to say as representative of what truly happened.

  • “MR. WALLACE: So, Congressman Paul, and I’d like you to take 30 seconds to answer this, you’re basically saying that we should take our marching orders from al Qaeda?

    Do you suppose that this is why the Democratic candidates refused to participate in a Fox “News” debate? What kind of a question is that for a supposedly “fair and balanced” debate moderator to ask?

    Thanks for watching, CB, so I didn’t have to. Makes my blood pressure go up.

    I didn’t watch Jay Leno either.

  • Mark, Steve I’m sure doesn’t endorse Mike Wallace’s out-of-line retort to Ron Paul, but as he said it got a huge rise out of the audience and was noteworthy for that reason.

  • A couple of other noteworthy moments:

    It wasn’t until 32 minutes into the debate that a question was posed to Ron Paul, after already having addressed the other candidates at least one, two, or even three times. I’d call that haughty indignation on the part of Foecks News.

    “The world is flat.” -Senator Brownshirt [I’m not kidding; he actually said that.]

    “Political correctness is going to get us killed!” -Tom Tancredo [Run for your lives!]

    Sean Hannity made a complete jackass out of himself, not that he wasn’t already a complete, unadulterated jackass. His unabashed disdain for Ron Paul was so blatant, I was surprised that he even shook his hand in the post debate “spin.” I was waiting for Hannity to throw a tantrum on the floor kicking and screaming when it became apparent that Dr. Paul had won Foecks’ News text-message poll by a tally of 33% (Huckabee was 2nd with 18%, and McCain was 3rd with 14%, I think).

    Then, to top it all off, Hannity and Colmes insinuated that Ron Paul supporters had padded the text-message poll results. But like Hannity’s beating of the war drums for Iraq (and now Iran), he offered no evidence in support of his implication. After all, it was Foecks News’ poll.

  • Mark (#6) certainly has a different take on the Wallace/Paul incident than I do. Of course the pro-war element in the crowd would erupt when Wallace loaded up a question for Paul, but that doesn’t mean anything. As CB pointed out, Paul got applause of his own from those less enthusiastic about staying in Iraq forever.

    Mark, if you visit this website very much, you will find that CB exposes his “obvious, personal biases” all the time, and we like him for it. Get used to it. If we want “fair and balanced,” we can always go to Chris Wallace on Fox “News.”

  • I guess Luntz didn’t realize the audience he was hanging out with wasn’t the same one Fox assembled for the debate…

    Some pretty interesting moments of applause, there…

  • No offense Mark, but you need to either get a clue or a thicker skin. I would be good money that CB sides with Paul over Wallace on that exchange; you totally misrepresented what CB was doing in his post.

    JKap, I gotta say I liked how your man Paul handled himself last night, but you gotta admit that he has a real problem (not just a media or polling error problem) when he comes in third in the Texas straw poll – he is the only candidate from Texas, and unlike Iowa’s buy-a-vote poll, Texas’ straw poll is essentially a poll of party activists.

    I was disappointed in Huckabee. I thought he was better than the ideologue that showed up last night.

    And apparently Chris Wallace forgot that he is not a candidate and it isn’t his job to engage in hits or to make news. Shocking, I know.

  • “MR. HUCKABEE: Congressman, we are one nation. We can’t be divided. We have to be one nation under God. That means if we make a mistake, we make it as a single country, the United States of America, not the divided states of America.”

    This is the bit that really gets me. Has Huckabee never heard the phrase “The buck stops here”. I mean, granted that was Truman, and not the greatest president ever, but even he realized that part of being a leader is taking responsiblity for your mistakes – not passing the blame on to your constituents. Besides the fact that he’s trying to paint the entire country as one monolithic block that thinks the same way about everything.

  • “MR. HUCKABEE: Congressman, we are one nation. We can’t be divided. We have to be one nation under God. That means if we make a mistake, we make it as a single country, the United States of America, not the divided states of America.”

    I wonder how many seconds it would take to find a dozen examples of Huckabee Hound refusing to back the president when his name was Clinton?

    I’m glad so many Republicans are finally getting enough of a clue to tell Luntz and the other charlatans that they’re fed up. OTOH I doubt if this will last long, especially if Hillary is our nominee.

  • Jeez, these republicans just don’t get it. Terrorists want to change our way of life, and these cowardly republicans, bedwetters all of them, have reacted in the exact way that Osama would want. In 6 short years after 9/11, we have become not the land of the free and home of the brave, but land of the free as long as you are a good little citizen and let the government trample you’re rights to protect you, and the home of the cowardly, bedwetting, terrorist under the bed get my mama pussies.

    It doesn’t surprise me though, 9/11 and Osama are the best hings to ever happen to the republican party.

  • So, as the saying goes re Ron Paul and his stance on the Iraq War, “even a blind pig finds an acorn now and then.”

    Ron Paul sponsored bill in the House to define that “life begins at conception.” He also thinks that individual states should decide whether religious propaganda (ten commandments monuments, etc.), is allowed on public (taxpayer-supported) property. He also advocates ending Social Security (by letting workers “opt out” if desired), and Medicare, and Medicaid, or any form of federally-funded healthcare.

    Ron Paul? Seriously?

  • I guess all we can do is nuke ’em. The muslims I mean. Anything else is catering to OBL. Where is OBL by the way?

  • Ron Paul really did screw that up. It’s not that Al Qaeda wants us out of Iraq or Saudi Arabia, because they most surely want us there because it helps convince Muslims that we’re trying to conquer the Muslim world. So it’s basically handing Al Qaeda a big recruiting tool; similar to how 9/11 was a recruiting tool for us. Put that way, it’s obvious that Bush, Wallace, and the rest of the GOP are just taking marching orders from Bin Laden. Paul needs to get his story straight if he’s going to want to persuade rightwingers at all.

    And overall, I wish people would stop pinning their hopes on Paul. Just because he has some non-Republican lines to say about civil liberties and the Iraq war doesn’t make him a good choice. The real difference is that he’s a true libertarian and not a Republican (he was once the Libertarian Party presidential nominee). But he’s strongly anti-abortion, has said he thinks automatic weapons should be legal, and wants to abolish the IRS. In other words, Paul is not a Dem in wolf’s clothings or even a moderate. He’s just a fruitcake who happens to agree with us on a few key issues. Beyond that, he has no chance of getting the nomination, so the whole subject really is moot.

  • Re: Dr. Biobrain @ #18
    …he has no chance of getting the nomination..

    I’m glad that you speak for the American Electorate. This simplifies things greatly for the rest of us.

    Hey, you could have sat in on Hannity & Colmes last night, Biobrain. You and Sean Hannity have some similar views. Ron Paul is throwing a monkey wrench into their imperial, war-mongering machine. But I guess some of you wouldn’t mind seeing that infernal contraption hitting on all cylinders.

    Fortunately for American Democracy, we have the Constitutional right to vote for whom we choose, and that right is not contravened by mind-numbing, goose-stepping political calculation or political solidarity. Correct me if I am wrong, but do not politicians want our votes? Should not political discourse in this country consist of a robust and open debate that considers all sides to an argument without prejudice? Maybe not, since that requires people to think for themselves.

    I know that it makes you feel superior, but your name-calling only serves to impeach your credibility.

  • Hey Doc, If you weren’t so worried you wouldn’t be blowing off all that steam. Ron Paul will be nominated, and he will become President of these United States. Fruitcake my butt, man of the hour is more like it. Ron Paul born leader, big problem.

  • Pingback: Balloon Juice

  • Yep,

    If you think the political system is not rigged, just look at what the people want and what is crammed down their throats!

    I predict hoards of torch carrying public looking for a bit of pay back CBS, FOX, CNBC, CNN and who do you think they will be looking for?

    -Joe

  • Ron Paul scores multiple victories in Fox Republican Debate:

    Ron Paul Wins Fox News TV viewer poll by a Landslide (phone text messaging)
    Ron Paul 33%; Huckabee 18%; Giuliani 15%; McCain 14%; Romney 12%;
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295969,00.html

    Ron Paul Wins MSNBC Online Poll by a Landslide
    Who showed the most leadership qualities? Ron Paul 70%; Giuliani 8%; Romney 7%.
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18963731/

    Ron Paul Wins World Net Daily Post Debate Poll by a landslide with 37% of the vote.

    Ron Paul Photo, Headline and Story Featured on Cover Page of http://www.abcnews.com

    Ron Paul Makes Top Headline “In the News” on Cover Page of http://www.yahoo.com

    Ron Paul named in headline on Front Page of Google News Home Page

    Ron Paul named in headline featured on Front Page of London Guardian Latest World News Online

    Ron Paul’s name mentioned on front page of http://www.cbsnews.com

    Ron Paul’s name mentioned in the first line of the MSNBC story on the debates.

    Ron Paul’s name mentioned in headline on debate story at US News and World Report.

    In summary, Ron Paul won this debate hands down, and Ron Paul has elevated himself to where he is an undisputable top tier candidate and one of the frontrunners for the Republican nomination and Presidency.

    http://www.RonPaul2008.com

  • Pingback: Another take on the Fox Republican debate « Compassion in Politics

  • Fred thompson is the only one that will protect the children from the terrorists. In this time of war, we must give up our freedoms to protect our childrens safety. Vote Fred Thompson

  • Pingback: Ron Paul owns the Republican party « cannablog

  • Ron Paul sponsored bill in the House to define that “life begins at conception.” He also thinks that individual states should decide whether religious propaganda (ten commandments monuments, etc.), is allowed on public (taxpayer-supported) property. He also advocates ending Social Security (by letting workers “opt out” if desired), and Medicare, and Medicaid, or any form of federally-funded healthcare.

    Ron Paul? Seriously?

    sad, isn’t it? He’s not even a particularly good libertarian, since he’s anti-choice and anti-church/state-separation.

    As another commenter noted, it’s a shame that the only candidate talking sense about the war is otherwise a complete loon.

  • Hey r€nato, Ron Paul “advocates ending Social Security (by letting workers ‘opt out’ if desired), and Medicare, and Medicaid, or any form of federally-funded healthcare” because they are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. There is NO authorization in the Constitution for such things. Our Founders would probably have been happy for us to have such programs if we wanted them, but they would have wanted them to be created at the STATE LEVEL. The federal government shouldn’t be in the business of healthcare and welfare. Ron Paul opposes such thing because he is a true constitutionalist. You would know this if you had actually read the Constitution for yourself.

    ** He also thinks that individual states should decide whether religious propaganda (ten commandments monuments, etc.), is allowed on public (taxpayer-supported) property.**

    Paul believes this because that is the INTENT of the Constitution. Don’t believe me? Read what Joseph Story had to say about the First Amendment in his famous Commentaries on the Constitution. If you don’t know who Story was, look him up. Story said that the issue of religion was to be out of the hands of the government and LEFT TO THE STATES. Again, Paul is a true constitutionalist – that is why he has the position that he does on state and religion. Don’t let your bias against religion get in the way of an honest assessment of what the Constitution means.

  • To fred thompson, who wrote the following:

    “Fred thompson is the only one that will protect the children from the terrorists. In this time of war, we must give up our freedoms to protect our childrens safety. Vote Fred Thompson”

    Benjamin Franklin said this:

    “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

    The day we give up our freedom for ANYTHING is the day we will forever cease to be a free nation. Today’s pampered generation doesn’t know what it is like to live under tyranny so the have little real appreciation for freedom.

  • Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional because there’s no authorization in the Constitution for them? That’s really great to know. So what else does that make unconstitutional? The FAA? The SEC? Public schools? NASA? The NIH? You know, it might be unconstitutional to have 9 Supreme Court justices. I mean, the Constitution doesn’t specify how many we can have, so 9 might not be what the Framers wanted. I wonder what we should do. Maybe just not have any justices at all so we don’t offend the Libertarians.
    Come on, libertarians, the Constitution is something that changes with society. That’s the way the Framers wanted it. They were an amazing collection of farsighted and wise people, the most remarkably able group of people that ever assembled anywhere, anytime. But they weren’t God. They didn’t have all the answers, and they were wise enough that they knew this themselves, which is why they made the Constitution flexible.

    • Comments are closed.