And now to the Republican debate on MSNBC last night, for which I want to give the same kind of performance analysis as I did for the Democratic debate last week - that is, how presidentially the candidates presented themselves, as distinct from whether or not I agree with their positions.
Except — I just have to say — did you see that three Republicans raised their hands to signify that they did not believe in evolution? And, once again, the camera did not move in close enough. From what I could see, it wasn't Giuliani or McCain and I'm pretty sure it wasn't Romney at the other end. But three others Republican candidates did raise their hands. (They have been identified as Sen. Sam Brownback, Gov. Mike Huckabee, and Rep. Tom Tancredo.) The mind boggles - I thought for a second I was watching The Tudors, except then it would have been more entertaining...
As for the rest of the debate: the three front-runners — Giuliani, McCain, and Romney (currently in the descending order in the polls) — did fine. There were no real upsets there. Giuliani could have been a little more dynamic, and perhaps lost a bit of ground to McCain. Mitt Romney certainly looked and sounded the best, in terms of the Democratic JFK standard. But if I had to pick a winner, I'd say McCain by a hair over Giuliani, with Romney very impressive.
I've often indicated my admiration for the constitutionality of Ron Paul, and it was a pleasure to hear him talk about the need for declarations of war tonight, and the importance he places on freedom of expression. But he's not a dynamic speaker, and I think the best we can hope for regarding Dr. Paul is that whoever is next President of the United States appoint Ron Paul to some important cabinet position where he can remind us, more effectively than as Congressman, of the need for our government to adhere to the Constitution.
And a last point about the media, and in particular its presentation of this debate: although I like Chris Matthews as an interviewer on his MSNBC Hardball show, I was annoyed with the way he cut off so many of the candidates' answers. The American people would have been better served by a debate that ran a few minutes longer, in which every candidate was allowed to have a little more say.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - troll
although the pundits might Perot him Paul got my donation...I hope that he can keep the Constitution at the center of the Republican debate
2 - Arch Conservative
Mccain the winner?
Put down the crack pipe Paul.
Rudy stumbled amd bumbled his way through the entire debate while Mccain acted like a madman trying to convince us all of why he isn't really just a Bush lackey when we all know that's what he is.
Mitt Romney was clearly head and shoulders above everyone else in the debate. He was the most articulate, the most well informed, the most knowledgable and he appeared to be all around more presidential and ready for primetime than all the other candidates combined.
I am now more confident than ever that Mitt Romney will be our next president. He is not George Bush and has so much more to offer than Hillary.
The issue of his mormonism will be nothing but a speed bump on his way to the oval office. I fully expect to see Romney overtake that loon Mccain in the polls over the next several weeks and pull close to Rudy.
It's been almost 20 years since the American people have had a true leader in the White House that they could be proud of but we won't have to wait much longer.
Please sit back and fasten your seatbelts. Make sure your trays are in the upright position. The Romney Reveolution is about to begin.
Vive le Romney!
3 - David Dawson
Romney is scary! He's AGAINST stem-cell research, and he attacked "cloning"!!!
Cloning does not mean "copying a human" it's simply "somatic cell nuclear transfer" - which is the heart of copying DNA. He, like most repuklicans, fails to understand science, so he rejects it.
What's ironic & pathetic is that these wackjobs constantly benefit from all the inventions of science, such as heart transplants, skin grafts, and new medications, while they deny the science behind such inventions.
They question EVOLUTION (or deny it) while they accept the MUCH WEAKER "Gravitational Theory".
For any right-wingers out there who deny evolution.. Try denying gravity too (which is only a theory), preferably from the roof of a 20-story building.
4 - Tim
I can't believe this wasn't the headline on all the major reports!
These religious wackos make our country a laughingstock.
Nice to find your blog.
5 - Samson LeGuera
Why would you play the same annoying game as the MSM, asking which candidate was "most presidential"? (This was Keith Olbermann's first question too.) What does this even mean? Can't voters decide who they want to be president? What the media (and bloggers) can and should do is draw out the distinctions between candidates on policy, substance, and accuracy. Ask what the country might look like with this person as president. In this case, I want to know who the libertarians are, who is getting money from which sources, and what these guys have done in their previous roles. Most presidential? What an empty concept. Are you judging ties, sport coats, and haircuts?
6 - NBq
Evolution is not a REAL thing. It's not like the Earth is covered with evidence of it or anything like that.
As far as gravity is concerned, I have my doubts. No apple has EVER fallen on my head!
Oh ya, can you please loosen the straps a little? They're starting to cut off circulation around my neck.
7 - Lee Richards
I'm not so sure Romney's Mormonism will be a non-issue.
There is no religious test for office, and there should not be. However, it is a fair question to consider if and how a candidate's faith and beliefs may affect his/her attitudes, efforts, policies and performance.
Why is it any different for a Mormon than a Baptist, Methodist, etc.? Well, for one thing, Mormons themselves claim to be different in a number of ways.
Wouldn't there be some questions or concerns about a Muslim candidate for president? Would an avowed atheist or Wiccan get a pass from any scrutiny on grounds of religious freedom?
Fair or not, Romney may have some convincing to do about his religion.
8 - Clavos
Paul,
Nice review. I couldn't believe the three, either.
Good point about Chris Matthews' interruptions; especially on a cable channel like MSNBC, the schedule should be flexible enough to allow for extra time.
9 - Arch Conervative
Romney is scary!
Yes he is scary. To leftst riff raff such as yourself. He's scary because he's such an articulate, intelligient, capable republican who clearly has an extremely good shot at winning the white house. Romney never claimed in last night's debate nor any other time to not believe in evolution.
You know what's really scary Mr. Dawson? The prospect of a liberal Democrat getting elected so that they may raise taxes, increase spending, enable and coddle ilegals, make it more easier to murder millions of babies a year, subject our soverignty and security to the UN, criminalize Christianity, ruin the healthcare system by attempting to socialize it, perpetuate a ridiculous culture of politically correct speech, and otherwise adavnce their far leftist ideology that is not what the American people want.
Mitt Romney is a forced to be reckoned with and all of you doubting motherfuckers and scumbag leftists had better get used to him. He is easily the equal of, if not the superior to any and all in the crop of moonbats that the Dems have offered us for 2008 in intelligence, charisma, ledership ability, vision and integrity.
Mitt Romney is not George Bush nor has he been a George Bush lackey over the past several years in the way that John Mccain has and all attempts at painting him as one by the American left will ultimately fail. Nor is Romney the type of man who prostheletizes or converts. This is why he will not be to encumbered by his Mormonsim. The more the American public gets to know Mitt, the more they will see he is a decent family man with mainstream American values who just happens to be a Mormon.
It's going to be fun watching the left fail miserably as they try to tear down this great man while trying to build up that commie, corrupt deceiftful, dishonest, lying, evil, cunt, Hillary that close to one half of the nation already hates.
Our next president is either going to be Mitt Romney or Rudy Guilani and that's all there is to it. Any of you leftists fucks that have a problem with that can fuck off. It's reality. Deal with it!
10 - Zedd
Paul
Great review.
You may be right about McCain. However I think its just hard to get over what seems to be his Faustian compromise with Rove and Co. I just can't get passed that. I acknowledge that its a personal problem. Also his weird stance on the war makes him more slimier than Hillary. He'll do and say anything to be President. Perhaps the fact that I liked him so much last time makes me dislike him so much more this time, since he has become his own antithesis.
Yes the evolution thing was just scary and sort of funny. The idiocy of it all was and still is worth a few chuckles. I'm surprised the question of the world's flatness didn't come up. Romney's strong candidacy suggests a decline in all of our intelligence. Okay Christianity is strange enough but a conjunction to Christianity which involves Jesus in North America, gold discs and a chosen people in AMERICA is just taking things beyond the bizarre. All that stated in sobriety with all of us seriously considering this candidate because of freedom of religion adds to the surreal nature of the times. I've stopped asking "Is it just me?". It all just too much.
Letting Bush into the Whitehouse is going to make it permissible for ANYBODY to come into office because they will sound like an improvement to him, our Decider.
11 - Zedd
Paul
Actually I think that it is Bush's presidency that has allowed us to seriously consider a woman or a minority male for President. Suddenly the mystique of the upper crust, White, Anglo Saxon, protestant has faded. Along with Paris Hilton revealing to us the results of her "to the manor born", upbringing and education. We now roll our eyes (as a society) to Thurston Howell the third and see him to be a fraud replacing his "above it all" smugness with GW's Beavis and Bthead's cackle in our collective mental reference library.
Why not a Black guy or a woman, heck even a falandering jerk and a guy who believes that Jesus came to America, and dark skin is a curse. ..... Why not.
12 - Gary Varnum
This wasn't a "debate", but at least it gave us a chance to see some of our Republican options. It just increased my hopes that Fred Thompson will soon announce his candidacy.
Romney was slick enough to be a politician, or a car salesman. He performed well and outshined McCain and Guliani. He may be our next "great communicator", as voters tend to love flash and style. I won't base my full opinion on him based on just one appearance, and he's piqued my interest enough to find out more about his politics. So I think he was the overall "winner" of last night's event, as it probably made a lot of viewers curious about him.
The "Do you believe in evolution?" question posed as a simple yes or no was a load of crap. Like asking,"Does your mother know you're gay?". People should learn to distinguish between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, and make that distinction when asking such questions.
13 - Clavos
Along with Paris Hilton revealing to us the results of her "to the manor born", upbringing and education.
Paris Hilton was born rich, but mere wealth does not make one "to the manor born," in fact wealth isn't even necessary.
Paris (and her father and grandfather) are nouveau riche peasants; Paris herself proves that.
They are not even on the radar of families like the Cabots, Lodges, and Vanderbilts.
14 - Zedd
Clavos
I know the history of the Hiltons.
Paris is 3rd generation rich. She is no longer nouveau riche, at least in America. Yes her grand father was and her dad but they have been entrenched in the lifestyle of the wealthy for several generations and shouldn't be so ostentatious as the nouveau. Perhaps her mother may have influenced her class identity. If you look her father you see Biff with his navy blazers, oxford shirts and khaki pants.
The current prototype of the nouveau riche are the athletes with their bright colored suites and diamonds. The same would be true for hip hop artists. Elvis was a poster boy for that phenomenon with Graceland and all of the other garish purchases that he was known for.
15 - Gloria
I don't believe the president has to "look presidential."
Did Thomas Jefferson look presidential? We don't even know, because TV didn't exist then. Franklin Roosevelt or Abe Lincoln wouldn't be elected today because they wouldn't be handsome enough. That should have no bearing.
I would love for Ron Paul to be president, but I'd love it also if he had a good cabinet appointment.
I don't see why Romney's Mormonism is an issue? Mormons are Christians, so it is not the same as a Muslim or an atheist. People were opposed to JFK because he was Catholic. People change their ideas over time.
16 - Arch Conservative
To me, looking presidential doesn't mean they have nice hair or a nice smile. it means they look like they have their shit together and would make a very good leader. It means the candidate is knowledgable on a wide variety of issues and can speak to them intelligiently and with a clear vision. It means that they are prepared to take this country int he right direction fiscally, culturally and as a member of the global community.
That's what "looking presidential" means and the way in which I use it, is I believe, a valid charactrization.
17 - Clavos
I know she's third generation rich, Zedd, I said so.
Rich doesn't make you "to the manor born" as you put it. That phrase involves MUCH more than mere money. You don't even have to be rich to be "to the manor born," but most are.
I'm talking about breeding, which the Hiltons have never had. Old man Conrad was a self made poor boy who got rich; one of his sons, Nicky (Paris' great uncle) made a complete ass of himself when he was young (before you were born). His only claim to fame (besides his misbehavior) was to be one of Elizabeth Taylor's husbands - there's an accomplishment!
Paris' grandfather, Barron DID run the chain and succeeded fairly well. Her father, Richard is a real estate agent. Paris is obviously cut from the same pattern as her playboy great uncle; no class.
"Nouveau riche" refers to a lot more than how long you've had your money; some families never outgrow it. In four generations, the Hiltons haven't.
18 - PENIX
Science and religion can live in harmony, which is why it's surprising they don't believe in evolution at all.
19 - Dr Dreadful
"leftist riff raff"...
"doubting motherfuckers and scumbag leftists"...
"crop of moonbats"...
"that commie, corrupt deceitful, dishonest, lying, evil, cunt, Hillary"...
Arch seems to have gone off his meds.
He's been all right for a while (though opinionated as always), then in the last couple of days he's taken to lacing his comments with this kind of crap. What do they say about people resorting to insults when they're losing an argument...?
Seriously, Arch, you need to chill. Take a few days off. Go to Hawaii or something. Oh, wait - Hawaii - blue state - never mind...
20 - elpablo
"Our next president is either going to be Mitt Romney or Rudy Guilani and that's all there is to it. Any of you leftists fucks that have a problem with that can fuck off. It's reality. Deal with it!"
Damn strait! I totally agree with this poster. I'm voting for either the Mormon Scientologist, or the guy who likes wearing a dress.
21 - Clavos
Mormon Scientologist
?????????
22 - Dr Dreadful
Mormon Scientologist...
Now that would be an interesting combo...
Is Mitt Romney the bastard offspring of Tom Cruise and Marie Osmond? :-)
23 - Dave Nalle
Did Thomas Jefferson look presidential? We don't even know, because TV didn't exist then.
Actually, by all accounts Jefferson was a horrible slob who didn't brush his hair and greeted dignitaries who visited him in the White House in his bathrobe and slippers.
Dave
24 - Dave Nalle
Mormons are Christians
I think that's a pretty debatable point. Certainly most mainstream Christian churches wouldn't agree. They may be part of the Judeo-Christian tradition, but having a second revelation pretty much makes them non-Christian.
Dave
25 - Ludwig Von Mises
I really do hope that the deluded and soporific GOP actually end up nominating someone like McCain, Romney, or Giuliani, who will instantly come unravelled (the debate was only the preview) under even cursory scrutiny of their policies or their ideas of needed action on what's really important to most Americans.
That leaves......oh, wait, there seem to be no Republicans presenting any alternative to their usual politics of fear, Reagan-era necrophilia, Bush lite, Christian hysteria, or jingoistic warmongering? Remind us again of why these clueless and elitist idiots deserve to win office again? Can you do it without resorting to these same tired and asinine campaigning tropes?
I thought not. F*** off, Republican dinosaurs, you're standing in the way of reason, intellect, democracy, and the American people. Collect your door prize on the way out, and hope that you don't get indicted in the meantime. Ask Attorney General Gonzales for lessons on how to lie shamelessly should you inconveniently need to testify under oath.