JOCKEYING FOR POSITION NEXT TO JAHWEH: THE GOP DEBATE
I give the panel of candidates a corporate B minus. They really had to answer a series of mouth-breather, marginal questions which detracted from the quality of the whole affair.
I give the questioners a C minus (Saved from being a D only by Wolf asking whether the Senators had in fact READ the national security estimate concerning the proposed war in Iraq).
Duncan Hunter did a tremendous job of demonstrating who he is: a self-absorbed, bellicose whack job in love with his own resume. McCain remains at least a half a bubble off of plumb.
Worst answer of the night and best answer of the night go to Huckabee. Worst was when he puffed up the Taliban and its role in ending the cold war (That whole "fight in the dog" speech--if that had been a democrat, he would have been charged with giving aid and comfort to the enemy.) Best was his theologically consistent answer to the ridiculous "evolution" question. It was interesting how it ruffled Wolfie's hair as it sailed over his head.
Brownback took a giant step backwards. Romney's still pretty shallow but his job was to look presidential and he did, to a point. Is the whole LDS thing getting tiresome or is it just me?
Eliminate Hunter. He's straight out of "Dr. Strangelove". The rest of them would probably be poor presidents but I'll say this for them. Any (save Hunter) would be better than what we have now.
I think Shakespeare called that damning with faint praise.
Anyway, it was fun. We laughed a lot watching.
posted by UMRBlog @ 09:58
18 comments
18 Comments:
The best candidate wasn't even in the debate...and everyone knows who I'm talking about...
www.Imwithfred.com
Who won the Dem debate earlier this week?
1105,
Probably the best debater wasn't in the debate, but it wasn't Fred. It was Newt. He wouldn't be a prez worth a flip but he's great at making polemic points and making doing nothing sound like a plan.
TYFCB
1159,
I think Hillary won by not losing. Another way to put it is Obama missed a chance to be anything other than an articulate old style lefty.
I'll be interested to see if there's a Biden poll move. He certainly pushed all his chips into the middle.
TYFCB
327
and you think both of these two would make a better than poor president?
Time has an article about the possibility of no Republican nominee having enough to secure the nomination - if that happens we have an old school covention nomination. Is it possible in today's political environment to nominate a person that is not currently running?
Biden's best chance is a VP nomination - say if Obama wins. I do not think that Hillary can win a presidential election. If she gets the nomination the Republicans have a real chance. Obama has a problem with substance. I went to an Obama town hall meeting in Pittsfield a few years ago - he was outstanding, but many of the things he talked about he did nothing about after the speech. Edwards is tainted by the Kerry/Edwards loss in 2004. Is Gore still a possibility?
Rob 2114,
Imagine that! A convention doing what it's supposed to do. That would be great for politics.
I can't see a Gingrich or a Hagel being drafted. What I could see is a deadlocked first two ballots and a Huckabee becoming the third round concensus/Compromise. Just using Huckabee as an example because he can walk and chew gum at the same time.
TYFCB
The possiblity has arisen we are comparing Obama to the wrong Illinois famous politician (He obviously prefers Lincoln comparisons). We had an intellectual who was creative and would have been a philosopher king but couldn't come up with enough practical ideas to get people to vote for him for prez. His name was Adlai Stevenson II.
Might be the better parallel.
TYFCV
Stevenson - with all of that charisma - how did he not win? If only Stevenson were here today – that boring college professor look would go over great in today’s political environment. An intellectual like Adlai would have done great with the :30 second ad. It would have been better for Obama if he had more experience, but opportunities to run for president do not come around every day. Sometimes you just have to take a chance - in the end I think that he would be a good choice.
Your thoughts on Huckabee are spot on - conservative, but not a zealot. My guess is that the Republicans will copy the Dems act of 2004 - Rommney is the safe choice seemingly with the best chance to win. Wasn't that what all of the Kerry supporters said about the Senator from MA? Rommney will share Kerry's fate.
Rob,
The point was they are both big picture intellectuals. Haven't had one since Wilson and that didn't really work out too well.
You might say "what about Clinton." He may, in fact, be a big picture intellectual but he didn't run as one, nor did he govern as one.
I was just having some fun at Adlai Stevenson's expense - God rest his soul. I understood your point.
What Stevenson evinced that liberals liked, then as now, is sanctimony. "Better we lose the election than mislead the people, and better we lose than misgovern the people" is the self-righteous hot-air of a man who secretly--or not so secretly--despises the levers of democracy because he intuitively believes that Americans are stupid. And this is a belief that liberals by and large share. It is arrogant, and whenever it arises (Clinton is strangely free of it) liberals will get beaten again and again and again.
0913,
I think that was a post-loss speech. Very difficult to be graceful in that circumstance. As a governor, I'm not sure you can point to much "liberal" about ASII. He was stuffy but santimonious might be a reach.
The only reason I brought him up is because I thought he is at least as good a comp to Obama as the one Obama likes: Lincoln.
If that raised a happy occasion for you to indulge in your fixed prejudices, knock yourself out and enjoy the endorphins produced by categorically knocking others.
TYFCB
Anon 9:13 - you could have added God rest his soul. That would have been nice. I am not sure who you were describing though - it sounded less like Stevenson and more like Lex Luther.
The Obama brand has been carefully, albeit hurried, crafted. I'm just saying it's not a good comparison.
God rest his soul, even though I doubt Mellon has any personal recollections of the man since he died in 1965.
"Better we lose the election than mislead the people, and better we lose than misgovern the people," he once said, and unlike other politicians who mouthed such sentiments, he believed it. Winning would have proved him a politician no better than the rest.
Indeed, he was ostensibly intellectual, perhaps even noble, etc. But that's precisely why he lost elections. He was distant, uninspirational, and boring as hell, especially compared to the man who saved Europe. The fact that he lost election after election assures him of his "loser" status. The lionization and admiration heaped on this loser from intellectuals is, I think, a larger representation of liberalism itself, as an ideology and movement. It is sanctimonious, utopian, downright haughty, and depressingly (for liberals) a losing cause. It loves humanity, but hates human beings: A perfect description of Adlai Stevenson.
That's a nice liberalism theme but "Election after Election" is a little over the top. It's not like he was Harold Stassen or something.
Anon - I guess you can never metion Abraham Lincoln - you have no personal recollections of him. Well, I should watch my words - maybe you do.
Post a Comment
<< Home