Debate Thoughts

Is Ron Paul related to Ian McKellen? Why are we giving men running for the highest office in the land thirty seconds to answer serious questions? Is Sam Brownback running for preacher? Why did John McCain crack a weird grin right after promising to follow Osama to the "gates of hell"? Is there anything more painful than watching Rudy Giuliani talk about abortion? Is there anything more painful than watching Tom Tancredo talk?

Mitt Romney was the winner by default, I thought, since the other major candidates didn't distinguish themselves, and none of the minor candidates made an outsize impression. (Though how you would make an impression in that kind of ridiculous, overcrowded forum I have no idea.) McCain didn't hurt himself but didn't really help himself either, and every time I hear him talk I'm reminded of what a surprisingly weak public speaker he is. I was more impressed by Giuliani than Ryan Sager was, but that isn't saying much; he seemed more Presidential than most of the other folks on stage, but he didn't make much of a case for himself as a conservative. Among the also-rans, Hunter and Huckabee did best. It's too bad being one of the best governors of the last twenty years doesn't make Tommy Thompson a more plausible would-be President. If you read Paul's remarks in a transcript, he sounds reasonable; if you watched him, he sounds like your nutty uncle.

Overall - and I hope this doesn't make Daniel Larison's head explode - watching the debate made me raise my estimate of Mitt Romney's chances at the nomination. I certainly agree that he comes across as overpolished and a bit "like a well-cast actor in a movie of the week about a guy running for president," as Jonah put it. But in a field where most of his opponents look like badly-cast actors, that actually may give him a leg up.

Speaking of well-cast actors, I revised my estimation of Fred Thompson's chances upward as well.

Mickey Kaus gets the best line: "Is Sarkozy unavailable?"

Comments

I think clearly the winners were the two who where not there: Fred & Newt.

This debate was awful. What was with the question selection from MSNBC/Politco? Is Matthews aware that this is a primary election, not a general election?

I have to say I am also very disappointed with Gov. Thompson. I grew up in Wisconsin during the Tommy years and this is not the man I remember.

Posted by Steven | May 4, 2007 1:38 AM

It was embarrassing to watch Rudy Giuliani awkwardly fumble for the social conservative vote by pretending to be pro-life when he's clearly pro-choice. I guess it's a testament to how much political power the baby-worshipping constituency wields in today's GOP that Rudy felt the need to perform the anti-Roe sacraments (strict constructionist judges, leave it to the states, etc.) rather than stick with his convictions. Rudy, buddy, your supporters love you, but you're gotta stop pretending to be someone you're not. Don't let those baby cultists intimidate you.

Interesting that the USA Today survey points to a Giuliani victory. Early reaction from the conservatives is that either Romney or McCain won, with strong showings by Huckabee and Ron Paul(!). It's funny to watch Kathryn Jean-Lopez at The Corner attempt to enunciate with Romney's cock in her mouth.

Posted by Immoralist | May 4, 2007 1:47 AM

Tancredo was short-changed by Matthews, which is unfortunate because hands down he's the best man for the job. A third-world invasion of the West is taking place, and we need strong hand at the helm.

Posted by David H | May 4, 2007 9:30 AM

You still have to eat the hat.

Romney-Edwards is the best bet in my mind.

Posted by goosen | May 4, 2007 9:42 AM

How difficult would it have been to get a panel of conservatives (Frum, Will, Brooks, Kristol, Buckley, etc..) to ask questions, rather than rely on Chris Matthews and MSNBC to serve up intellectual junk-food.

Posted by Chris | May 4, 2007 4:40 PM

"...watching the debate made me raise my estimate of Mitt Romney's chances at the nomination.I certainly agree that he comes across as overpolished and a bit "like a well-cast actor in a movie of the week about a guy running for president..."- RD

Agreed and Agreed. The most interesting aspect of the debate was Romney's seeming ability to get away with "whole cloth" changes in core Republican positions. He is very comfortable in front of a camera, has a slick Clintonesque [B not H] sincere-ish quality, even when explaining his 180-degree flip-flops. People want to believe him, even if his political positions are determined at the intersection of his ambition and the polls. It is clear that, like Bill Clinton, he will govern based on polls and continuous compromise. Not necessarily a bad thing, since there will still be a Democratic majority in Congress in 2009. We will probably be in the range of 70% of America wanting us out of Iraq by the time the next President takes office. As such, Romney will get us out of Iraq quickly, no matter what he is saying now to get the nomination. This is a man that can absolutely be trusted to blow with the prevailing wind. He is not my favorite Republican hopeful (that would be Hagel), but out of this batch of Republican candidates, he is good enough.

Posted by mw | May 4, 2007 9:37 PM

Chris,

Frum, Brooks, Kristol and the post-1980s Buckley are not conservatives. They are neocon shills.

If you want to see a real conservative, then look at Chronicles Magazine, American Conservative, Middle American News, Occidental Quarterly, etc.

Posted by Real Right-Winger | May 4, 2007 11:05 PM

One of things that puzzle me about conservatives is the frequently found attitude,expressed by all kinds of right-wingers from Andrew Sullivan to William Lind, that whatever they personally happen to believe is the real essence of conservatism, and everyone else has just deviated from the true path.

In fact, one of the most obvious facts that stand out immediately to an outside observer is that conservatism was never, and is not now, about any one thing.It is a heterodox tradition.There is no such thing as "real conservatism".

I call them the Paul Hogan conservatives:"That's not a knife,this is a knife!"

Posted by Murky | May 5, 2007 8:26 AM

Murky,

I think you'll find that's relatively common for people with strong political convictions, especially if they are actually active in politics at whatever level. It's as true on the left as it is on the right (nobody hates Tony Blair more, for example, than somebody who is Old Labour).

There's a related tendency to have an unshakable determination that personal political beliefs are in perfectly synchronised lockstep with the man on the street (oddly enough, the fewer votes received, the stronger this conviction seems to get).

Posted by Anthony C | May 5, 2007 10:12 PM