Friday, May 4, 2007

And Now for Something Completely Different


I'll have to wait for "The Daily Show" to come up with the official count of how many times Ronald Reagan's name was dropped, but other key facts by my personal reckoning:
  • Chris Matthews lost control at about 8:44
  • Three questioners, each with his own schtick (reading from a monitor?), is a distraction
  • It is OK to be against stem cell research (even with Nancy Reagan staring you down in the front row), for congressional intervention in matters like the Schiavo case and to use the need for "victory" in Iraq as the catchall answer to any question about the war -- including a very pointed one about dealing with an endless supply of enemy recruits.
I had never seen Mitt Romney in an extended forum (if you can call 60 seconds long) or on TV doing anything other than defending himself in sound bites, so I can appreciate now what his supporters see in him: a smooth, prepared, articulate candidate of dare-I-say presidential
Why is it that only the fringiest of the candidates -- Ron Paul on the Republican side, Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich on the Democratic -- can answer questions directly?
bearing. He was unflappable, missing not a single beat. Get past the fact that he has changed his position on everything of consequence in the last 22 minutes and he will be a force to be reckoned with.

What Will Hold Giuliani Up?

I am starting to agree with those who say Giuliani's balloon cannot possible stay aloft too long. He has become the uninspiring, borderline mumbling chief executive I recall from his many pre-9/11 years in New York. And repeating his line that electing a Democrat puts the U.S. on the defensive means he is wedded to this cheap politician pander.

Sadly, McCain conveys the worst of two worlds: he is looking his age and sounding like a radical in this pack (apart from the war).

Any why is it that only the fringiest of the candidates -- Ron Paul on the Republican side, Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich on the Democratic -- can answer questions directly? Is it only because they have nothing to lose?

Rating this as performance art (what else is it at this point) puts Romney on the ascent, at least as a national candidate.

Wither Fred Thompson?

Questions:
  • Were the answers to questions posed (and posted publicly) by Politico.com readers better than those that could not be read ahead of time?
  • Whose idea of a good idea was it to have the host of a show called "Hardball" to ask campaigning Republicans if whether it would be a good or bad thing if Bill Clinton lived in the White House again? (I'd like to say yes, but that would mean I lost ...)
  • When Fred Thompson jumps in, is it bad news mostly for Romney, Guiliani or McCain?

2 comments:

Bob McCarty said...

I watched the Republican Presidential Candidates Debate broadcast live from the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif., and was left thinking Newt Gingrich and Fred Thompson came away clear winners.

That’s right! Gingrich, the former Speaker of the House, and Thompson, the Law and Order star and former U.S. senator from Tennessee, can declare victory simply because both were smart enough to skip the event for two likely reasons:

First, because it’s taking place far too early to be remembered by voters 9 or more months from now;

and

Second, because video clips and sound bites from the event will serve Democrat candidates’ needs more than Republicans, a result of the fact that many of the questions were “loaded” with liberal bias in a variety of ways.

Speaking of liberal bias, I must share my feelings about MSNBC’s Chris Matthews and his colleagues at the alphabet networks: In short, I’ve never been comfortable with the hiring of former Democrat speech writers and operatives like Matthews, ABC’s George Stephanopolous and NBC’s Tim Russert as news anchors and, in this case, debate moderators.

Hat’s off to all of the Republican candidates for their self-control in not reaching out to ring the necks of Matthews and his Politico.com pals for conducting themselves the way they did.

Wrapping up, I want to share my gut-instinct feelings about the ”performances” of all the GOP candidates — all of whom must secretly wish they were Reagan – tonight:

Sam Brownback: Good guy. Would make a great neighbor.

Jim Gilmore: Straight-shooter who backs promises.

Rudy Giuliani: Democrat in a Republican suit that didn’t fit.

Mike Huckabee: Honest and sincere.

Duncan Hunter: Tough on border security.

John McCain: Striving to produce sound bites, appear tough. Didn’t do either well.

Ron Paul: Most common sense and, at same time, darkest horse running.

Mitt Romney: Too plastic. Too polished. Looks like Lyle Waggoner of The Carol Burnett Show from the ’70s.

Tom Tancredo: Independent-minded but flustered by Chris Matthews repeatedly cutting him off.

Tommy Thompson: Trying hard to appear tough.

More later. We have miles to go before we vote.

Bob said...

Pretty funny it must be said, especially that bit about Gingrich and Fred Thompson winning. But nobody noticed the truly hilarious bit? That 3 certified American candidates for President of the United States in the 21st Century attested they did not "believe in" evolution. Now, you could take that to several different punch lines, but it's hilarious just as it is.