debates

[avatar4321]

Why am I never hearing about these Republican debates until after they happened? Did anyone see anything about it? is it getting any publicity?

[red states rule]

Why am I never hearing about these Republican debates until after they happened? Did anyone see anything about it? is it getting any publicity?

Republican hopefuls debate abortion, war
By Stephen Dinan
August 6, 2007

DES MOINES, Iowa — Mitt Romney yesterday said his greatest mistake in life is that he used to be pro-choice on abortion, as he defended himself against attacks from fellow Republican presidential candidates.

"I get tired of people that are holier-than-thou because they've been pro-life longer than I am," said Mr. Romney, who polls show leading the field here in Iowa, which holds the first nominating contest of the 2008 campaign.

Mr. Romney was responding to a question during the Republicans' fourth presidential debate about automated phone calls being sponsored here by a rival campaign, which charged the former Massachusetts governor was pro-choice through 2005. Mr. Romney called the phone calls "completely wrong" and said he underwent a conversion to pro-life as governor.

He also retreated from his own attack in March on rival Rudolph W. Giuliani. He had criticized the former New York mayor for still supporting abortion rights and same-sex "marriage" and for opposing gun rights but says he has since learned more about his primary opponent's positions.

He and Mr. Giuliani dominated the debate, tossing out the most memorable lines and together pressing Democrats on their positions.

Mr. Giuliani criticized Democrats for bad economic policy and bad judgment on national security.

"There is a liberal Democratic assumption that if you raise taxes, you raise money," he said in response to a question about how to pay for infrastructure upkeep in the wake of last week's bridge collapse in Minneapolis. "We should have a good program for doing it. But the kneejerk liberal Democratic reaction — raise taxes to get money — very often is a very big mistake."

Still, other than the initial skirmish on abortion, yesterday's debate, moderated by George Stephanopoulos and aired on ABC's "This Week" program, was an unwieldy affair. It ranged across tax policy, national security and health care, but rarely delved deeply or exposed new positions among the field of nine.

for the complete article

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070806/NATION/108060066/1001

[red states rule]

Another take on the debate


Iowa Debate Wrapup

With Fred Thompson expected to enter the race next month, and the Ames straw poll next week, you’re going to see real pressure to start trimming the field in these debates. I can't imagine that too many people are happy with the current nine-soon-to-be-ten guys on stage format. Right now, I only want to see more of about half these guys.

First, George Stephanopolous was almost as bad as Chris Matthews, and that’s a high bar to clear. Steph was snippy, too obsessed with time and cutting off candidates. Almost all of his questions came from the mindset of a left-of-center guy trying to spotlight the Republicans’ flaws – first question was about abortion (yes, because that hasn’t been discussed), why don’t you agree with Grassley on S-CHIP, etc. I might find Tom Tancredo to be a waste of space, but I’m not running a debate; Steph is, and there’s no excuse for ignoring Tancredo for the first twenty minutes.

Yepsen was worse, almost indignant with a question to Rudy on taxes. Seriously, the Republicans deal with these axe-grinding fossils and Clintonite hacks and the Democrats can’t deal with Fox News? Cowboy up, you spineless weenies, Brit Hume isn’t going to bite you

By the way – slight loss for Fred Thompson. It would have been good to see him out there, to compare and contrast with the other candidates, and to see what he would say on some of these issues – does he think the cutoff income for S-chip is too high? (It is, at least in some states.) What does he think of the Minnesota bridge collapse, and questions about infrastructure funding? Etc. I realize we’ll see him in a debate sometime in September, probably, but for now, his absence weakens both him and the debate – since they don’t seem “real” until he’s in it.

Of the strongest performers, I’ll give a slight edge to Romney, but my general vibe coming out of this is similar to the other ones – Republicans have a clear first tier, and each time, they demonstrate why they’re in it.

Romney’s line about Obama “going from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in the span of the week” will be the soundbite of the day. Romney knows how to land a punch, and he’s clearly decided to lay off McCain or any other potential future ally. (I guess when you’re leading, as he is in Iowa, you just need to focus on keeping your supporters.)

Rudy is a strikingly strong candidate in these forums, and anybody who thought that this New York mayor couldn’t play in Iowa, or on a stage surrounded by a bunch of down-the-line social conservatives, has egg on their face. He knows how to hit conservatives erogenous zones – emphasizing Democrats’ refusal to use the words “Islamist terrorists,” hitting Yepsen for his question’s inherent premise that the answer to a infrastructure problem is higher taxes, etc. I think his combativeness and humor will play well. We’ll see if that has any impact on the Ames straw poll attendees.

McCain seemed a little… quieter than usual? Serene, almost? The line about the vice president’s duties was funny. Concurring with Kathryn’s take, McCain has shifted from King Leonidas (“to the gates of hell!) to elder statesman. I liked the earlier version better, but I guess this probably suits McCain well.


Beyond those big three, the other standouts were, again, Huckabee (great little anecdote about who he considered his “boss” in Arkansas) and Hunter (a shame this guy can’t make a peep in any poll).

Brownback had one or two better moments, but the debate started out on a tough note, citing his robo-call and his attack on Romney. Iowa Democrats are violently allergic to negative attacks; I suspect the Republicans aren’t that eager to see their candidates tearing each other down this early. (That’s the mainstream media’s job anyway.) He had to make a splash, and I don’t think he did.


Tancredo: Actually, nuking Mecca aside, this was one of his best performances. If he wasn’t Congressman-I-Will-Burn-Amnesty-Supporters-At-The-Stake, his small-government answers wouldn’t sound all that different from the rest of the field. Having said that, it’s tough to see justifying him in these additional debates.

Ron Paul: Actually, he too was better than usual, other than sticking the word “Neocon” into every answer. And to ensure I get my regularly-scheduled batch of mail declaring me "not a real conservative," let me declare again he’s still not going to win, Ronpaulites.

Tommy Thompson: Pack it up. Go home. Consider a Senate run in Wisconsin or something. If this Thompson stays in future debates, I may plan my bathroom breaks during his answers, since nothing he says stands out… ever.

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWJjODcwNWRkM2M1YTdiY2RkNmY2NzIzNzdkZjQ4NmU=

[red states rule]

The NY Times take on the debate.

Giuliani Takes a Slap and Gets It Back
By Adam Nagourney

David Yepsen?
Did Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former Republican mayor of New York, really diss David Yepsen?
For those of you who don’t know, David Yepsen is the legendary -– and we use the word advisedly -– political columnist for The Des Moines Register. He is as well-known in Iowa as Ed Koch is in New York City, about as well-liked as a political reporter can be and certainly respected. He was also, along with George Stephanopoulos, one of the questioners at the Republican presidential contenders’ debate from Des Moines on ABC this morning.
If Mr. Giuliani had a leitmotif during this debate, it was appealing to his conservative audience by slapping some favorite conservative targets, including The New York Times and Michael Moore. Mr. Yepsen seemed to have sparked a similar zing when he attempted to inquire whether, in light of the bridge collapse in Minneapolis last week, any of the Republican presidential contenders would support an increase in the gasoline tax to pay for bridge and road repair, noting that Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a Minnesota Republican, had said he was now open to that.
“Mayor Giuliani, how do you answer — in Minnesota, Governor Pawlenty, who vetoed an increase in his state gas tax, said now he may consider one,’’ Mr. Yepsen said. “Is this Republican dogma against taxes now precluding the ability of you and your party to come up with the revenues that the country needs to fix its bridges?
Mr. Giuliani peered back at his questioner and addressed him by name. “David, there’s an assumption in your question that is not necessarily correct, sort of the Democratic, liberal assumption: ‘I need money; I raise taxes.’”
Mr. Yepsen, who is not known for either backing down or being remotely partisan, persisted.
“Then what are you going to cut, sir?” he asked sternly.
Mr. Giuliani proceeded to explain that when he was mayor of New York he had cut taxes, and that those tax cuts had produced revenues that allowed him to finance bridge reconstruction. (Actually, there’s a good argument that it was the stock market boom in New York that brought all that money into the city’s coffers, but we’ll let that pass for now).
Was Mr. Yepsen done with Mr. Giuliani? Maybe not, considering the way he posed the next question to Mitt Romney, the former Republican governor of Massachusetts.
“Governor Romney, do you want to cut taxes to fix more bridges?” Mr. Yepsen asked.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/giuliani-takes-a-slap-and-gets-it-back/

[red states rule]

Republicans' offense is their best defense

By: Jonathan Martin
Aug 6, 2007 06:25 AM EST

Mitt Romney compared them to Karl Marx. Rudy Giuliani came right out and used the S-word (socialist). And John McCain poured salt in the wounds.

Reluctant to start slugging each other at this early stage of the campaign and still hesitant to directly criticize President Bush, the top GOP presidential candidates have found another way to vent their building aggression: pounding on their would-be Democratic rivals. Each has stepped up his rhetoric in recent days, sharpening attacks on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards.

At Sunday's GOP debate, Romney said Obama has "gone from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove" for stating his willingness to meet unconditionally with hostile foreign leaders but at the same time warning that he would attack al-Qaeda forces in Pakistan without that country's consent.

Giuliani, meanwhile, said the leading Democratic contenders "haven't run a city, a state, a business."

" I think maybe they've run a club somewhere," he joked, a veiled gibe at Clinton's having once been president of the Wellesley College Republican, according to an aide.

For the Republican hopefuls, the strategy is a mix of exasperation, calculation and desperation. Frustrated at the constant drumbeat of negative stories about their president and party, the candidates want to change the narrative. But it’s too politically risky at this point to lash out against one another, let alone Bush. So the obvious and safe alternative is to tee off on the Democratic contenders.

But the attacks aren’t just empty exercises in blowing off steam by top-shelf political performers. In a difficult climate, the Republican top tier recognizes the need to steadily begin reminding its own voters and the broader public about what a Clinton or Obama administration would bring.

Thanks to Bush’s sagging poll ratings and the unpopularity of the war in Iraq, the GOP brand isn’t likely to improve over the next year and a half. So the GOP field is getting a head start on a practice that usually begins in earnest after the identity of the nominee becomes clear: the arduous process of portraying the Democratic alternative as an unacceptable option.

Charlie Cook points out in a recent column exactly why Republicans need to get working. “In 16 Gallup surveys conducted so far this year, an average of 33.1 percent identified themselves as Democrats, compared with 28.1 percent who considered themselves Republicans,” Cook writes. “When the 37.8 percent who initially called themselves independents were asked which way they leaned, the Democratic advantage ballooned to 51.3 [percent] to 39.8 percent.”

Yet when the Republican candidates are paired with their likely Democratic rivals head to head in polls, the contest appears more competitive. To bridge the gap between these two sets of numbers, the GOP hopefuls have been ramping up the rhetoric, reminding voters of who the Democratic contenders are and what they supposedly stand for.

On the stump in New Hampshire last week, Romney summed up Clinton’s economic views as “out with Adam Smith and in with Karl Marx” and quipped that she couldn’t “get elected president of France with her platform.”

Giuliani has been even harsher. In New Hampshire last week to roll out his health care initiative, Giuliani warned that Democrats would raise taxes by as much as 30 percent and want to push a “socialist” approach to health care as part of their “nanny government” beliefs.

Also in recent days, Giuliani labeled the Democrats “the party of losers” for their desire to pull out of Iraq.

Even McCain, who has generally avoided tough partisan rhetoric, recently indulged in some shots at the expense of Obama.


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0807/5241.html