Allow me to give a little "retraction" of sorts. I say "retraction" in quotations because I am never wrong and will not go on record as being wrong, however, I would like to say that perhaps I jumped to a hasty conclusion regarding the merits of Mr. Gibson's moderating skills. He performed adequately - when he wasn't interrupting - and treated the Democrats in the same manner as he did the Republicans. Refreshing, someone who demonizes neither side and, for the most part, lets the candidates have their say for a few moments.
On the debates themselves....... Unlike the now infamous Gore/Bush debate where Al Gore prowled the stage in his cowboy boots and glaring red tie (he came off as a bully and helped steer independents clear of him - final debate of the 2000 election), the candidates were forced to remain seated, despite John McAin's best efforts to engage Mitt Romney in a literal slugfest. The Republicans went first and were asked questions by Gibson and then the political analyst for the ABC affiliate in New Hampshire. I would give his name here, but he was a sad little man and came off in a very forgettable manner - complete with dumb questions. I shall break down each candidate and how they responded -
- John McCain - called Romney the "candidate of change" because Romney "changed positions" on everything. Had little else to say except jabs of a personal nature at Romney. Came off as old and mean and, despite a strong showing in New Hampshire, will fade into the distance as we, the American Republicans, have proven time and again that we do not want him as president.
- Fred Thompson - was exactly like his character on Law and Order - a supporting actor. Had some nice comebacks to Ron Paul's nonsense and a bit of a dry air about him. Did not inspire but did not hurt himself as badly as McCain.
- Ron Paul - sigh....... I could not agree more with Sen. Paul's view on returning decisions to states and limiting the size and control of the federal government. However, he wouldn't stick to the topic and kept making these claims that Islamic militants attack us because we are bothering them by being in their country. Mr. Paul, read the Koran. We "bother them" by existing. They will not stop until we are dead. Better know the religion before you start talking about it. Who wants a president that doesn't understand the core belief of the enemy?
- Mitt Romney - my wife said he seemed arrogant and at times he did. However, he kept having to remind McCain that this was not a personal debate, but a debate of issues. Seemed the most "Presidential" of all the candidates in the debates - both Republican and Democrat. Held his own on the issues of foreign policy but became a little pushy when illegal immigration came up.
- Mike Huckabee - took a few shots at Romney, as well. Now, we all know my fondness for Huck, but he didn't exude the confidence I had hoped for. He had just won Iowa (which really doesn't mean a whole heap), but the nature of his questioning of Romney lead one to believe that Huckabee was chasing Romney and not the other way around. His answers also seemed a little scripted and chessy, at times.
- Rudy Guilianni - just a hair to liberal for the Republican side of things. He got nailed a couple of times on stances that he has moderated over times to tone down his leftist leanings and attempt to win over the far right. Had some things to say on foreign policy and put Ron Paul in his place on one occasion (speaking of the check he refused from the Saudi Prince), but he fell to pieces as he attempted to defend his policy on illegal immigrants (note the word illegal - why the fuss?? If they are illegal, then treat them as such. Otherwise, call them persons not from here originally and not taxed like the rest of us).
They were unanimous in their disapproval of everything Bush had done domestically and abroad. This derision was in spite of the piece that ABC ran on the war. It reported that casualties since the troop surge were down %63 among Iraqi civilians and only 23 Americas died last month as opposed to 160 something the month prior. Gibson asked each candidate if they still opposed the troop surge despite the fact that it seemed to be working. They all then went on to talk about how flowers smelled pretty and how they loved Sean Penn's acting (he mostly played a pot-head when he was younger - all that reefer madness is paying dividends now). Clinton kept making eyes at Edwards and Obama and complimenting them both. Obama wanted to talk about Oprah's book of the month and how he planned to pay for EVERYONE'S health care. There was a brief moment when Edwards spoke out against Hilary, but Richardson spoke up to remind everyone that this was all about hating on President Bush and not actually a debate of issues. Hugs ensued and I thought for a moment that I was watching a Hollywood awards show - no substance and a bunch of rich people acting like they speak for the middle class. It was a garbled mess that I didn't have the emotional fortitude to wade through and digest.
Now, you are probably noticing what a one-sided approach I took in analyzing the debates. Show of hands - who watched them?? If your hand is not up, you do not have the right to criticize as you clearly did not care enough to avail yourself of the proud display of Democratic policy. They displayed it proudly, alright. Of course, if you stand for nothing, it is easy to display nothing. I welcome dissenting opinions - with names, of course.
No comments:
Post a Comment