May 15, 2007
Pre-Spin Room Thoughts: McCain, Rudy, Romney
Invoking the Roger Simon rule: in my judgment, John McCain convincingly and incontrovertibly won tonight's debate. He was strong, confident, answered tough questions with ease and dispatch, and seemed the most presidential. He handled a Confederate Flag question with aplomb. He wore the fictionally commander-in-chief hat ably, and his responses to the torture questions were, simply, moving -- he transcended the format and the event.
Rudy Giuliani did very well. No one watching the debate will have any illusions that he's a cultural conservative. But he gave clear and illuminating answers to probing questions, and he did not appear nervous; he did not seem out of his league. And -- yes -- he was, at times, presidential. His outrage when Ron Paul said something loopy about 9/11 was genuine, and his emotions overflowed into the audience; he bonded with them. A powerful moment that evoked Giuliani's best moment and his best qualities. He also gets props for directly criticizing Hillary Clinton.
Mitt Romney was battered by the Fox News questioners. And his habit of answering the subject -- not the question -- left several flip-flop queries hanging, although his answer to a late-debate question on pandering was stronger. He didn't hurt himself tonight, but the debate moderators didn't help him. Romney didn't seem to get much air time. He answered the final terrorism question well. But he seemed to be on the defensive too much -- not his fault, generally -- but that's the impression he left me with.
Tom Tancredo had a good night, too, ending the night with a great Jack Bauer line. Maybe -- the break-out candidate of the night. Mike Huckabee was impressive under fire. Duncan Hunter was proficient on national security questions. The rest of the candidates were also on stage. Tommy Thompson committed two gaffes. Fox News questions were good. [MARC AMBINDER]
Posted at 10:34 PM
Comments
Oh come on! Huckabee won. He had the best responses to difficult questions.
Anthony | 05.15.07 10:38 PM
 |
I give it to Giuliani for the Ron Paul smackdown, and his several references to a President needing to make the hard calls.
I will support McCain if he is the nominee, but his attachment to McCain-Feingold still makes me queasy, I don't believe for a moment that he's not in favor of amnesty for illegals, and McCain strikes me as someone who could appoint a Democrat Senator like Biden to the Supreme Court just because he likes the guy.
pilsener | 05.15.07 11:05 PM
|
Looks like you got the same impression as I did. McCain continues to improve his standing in public opinion, which may be most surprising of all. Where I once held my nose at him, of the current lineup, he's now probably my first choice. (I never thought I'd say that!)
Mike Huckabee is impossible to not like; maybe eight years from now will be his time.
Beth | 05.15.07 11:11 PM
|
I disagree. Neither McCain nor Giuliani won the debate. As a matter of fact McCain looked old and nothing that he said stood out. A conservative like me hate to hear what he said about torture, flag, immigration, etc. Giuliani looked nervous throughout. He clearly came out as liberal. My doubts about Romney being flip-flopper got confirmed today. None of these three are conservative.
Me and some of my friends whom I watched debate with think that Huckabee, Tancredo, Brownback won the debate.
Andy | 05.15.07 11:15 PM
|
McCain may have lied about the FortDixSix; AFAIK there's no evidence the three IllegalAliens came here on visas that had expired as he said.
And, of course, he also lied when he said that he doesn't support amnesty. The key question there is not how the dictionary defines that word, but how millions and millions of people around the world will perceive what McCain (and Bush and Teddy Kennedy) want.
TLB | 05.15.07 11:20 PM
|
Rudy's best moment involved self-delusion and a refusal to face basic unpleasant facts?
Was this some moment I missed during the Amadou Diallo thing? Refresh my memory.
Fluffy | 05.16.07 12:19 AM
|
For the record, here is what Ron Paul said about 9/11 in last night's debate:
"I believe the CIA is correct when it warns us about blowback. We overthrew the Iranian government in 1953 and their taking the hostages was the reaction. This dynamic persists and we ignore it at our risk. They're not attacking us because we’re rich and free, they’re attacking us because we’re over there."
It is refreshing, to say the least, to hear a candidate for president--from either main party, but especially a Republican--reject the false rationale for war abroad and destruction of civil liberties at home that Bush has repeated ad nauseum.
Adam | 05.16.07 12:24 AM
|
Marc's characterisation of Ron Paul's blowback comment as loopy is not a very compelling criticism of Ron Paul's well founded wisdom.
David | 05.16.07 12:29 AM
|
I thought Giuliani's answer to Ron Paul was great, and the only thing people will remember about this debate. He wins because of that response alone.
Brendan Steinhauser | 05.16.07 12:30 AM
|
I don’t think there are many people out there who will agree with you that McCain won. Also, people can see through the fact that Romney got more difficult questions than the other candidates. He handled them well though and I’m sure he will see a bump in his popularity because of it.
bjalder26 | 05.16.07 12:46 AM
|
Ron Paul was questioning the gov't, its mammouth sized growth lately, and its unreported foreign policy that DOES put us at risk.
We MUST question our gov't, its our duty as Americans!
What the hell are we doing sending trillions over there over the years and they say we could get nuked, but our borders arent protected and no nuke devices to filter cargo? Whats going on? Why if we had the CIA FBI National Security, and on and on, with the right Intel, did we not save ppl for 9/11? Bureaucracy! And they add another beast in Homeland Security.
I always wondered, did they attack Freedom, how? And was Democracy under attack? It never made sense.
Why arent they attacking Switzerland or New Zealand Ron asked.
These are important questions and we must be open to the fact that our foreign policies unbenownst to many of us, breed contempt and help inspire people too...and that Globalists like maybe Guiliani I would categorize are selling the USA out in some ways.
Try not to suffocate some critical thought like that man. Its important to ask such questions. Its American .
Roger | 05.16.07 12:57 AM
|
Ron Paul's loopy comments? Is it so hard to imagine that terrorist attacked the US because of US intervention in the Middle East? What did Rudy say that was so great? It reminded me of Lois winning the mayor race in Family Guy by replying "911" to all questions.
Wake up. This country is in a dire financial mess and the world hates us. Check out the US Comptroller's warning.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/01/60minutes/main2528226.shtml
We are a nation of dumb birds with our heads in the sand. Ron Paul is the only real conservative that is willing to speak the truth. Do you really think we are going to figure out the Middle East? Are we finally going to figure out how to build nations? When are we going to take back the Federal Reserve and stop printing paper and mortgaging our future? It's so sad to read articles like yours, so oblivious to the train wreck that is coming.
My prediction. More of the same. Bigger government. More intervention. More debt. And inevitable collapse, because people don't get it and are unwilling to learn.
One thing that history teaches us, is that we don't learn from history.
I wouldn't write off Ron Paul so quickly if you would like to see a future for your children in the US.
Jared Wells | 05.16.07 03:23 AM
|
Ron Paul is generally right on the bloated size of the federal government, but he fundamentally misunderstands the jihadist movement. This is not some effort that has been spawned over the past 10 years, 25 years, or even 50 years. This is a movement that is centuries old - before the existence of the United States. The United States is just the latest "infidel" and the most powerful one in all of time. Technology and increased global interrelatedness has now simply developed to the point where this jiahdist movement, once defeated, is a serious and capable threat once again.
John | 05.16.07 08:17 AM
|
Elected Marc Ambinder king? Did anyone ask his opinion? Just because he has a soapbox...
steffyl | 05.16.07 08:19 AM
|
The real highlight of the debate was how every candidate continually bumped into the microphones when they were trying to make emphatic gestures.
McCain won the top tier for me, though Giuliani will get more play for drive-by viewers. Huckabee was very impressive overall. Romney was ineffective and Paul, love or hate him, was out of place.
Andy | 05.16.07 10:50 AM
|
Paul said that our foreign policy CONTRIBUTED to terrorism. Yes of course there are elements of Islam that undenialably support the spread of Islam by violent jihad. But that element would not have the strength and support that it does if it were not for our foreign policy. Without our foreign policy those who argue for violent jihad would be marginalized.
Harold Crews | 05.16.07 11:17 AM
|
I think that Rudy and McCain did better last night than they did the previous debate. That would be the only reason I would say that either "won" the debate. I think that Romney held is own, irrespective of the jabs thrown at him. Although everyone expected the target to be on his back last night. Since Rudy and McCain did so much better it would be hard for Romney to stand out as much as did in the last debate. All in all nothing changed top tier is top tier. However, kudos to Huckabee for making an effort.
JB | 05.16.07 12:04 PM
|
This debate brought out the lower ranking candidates. Tancredo won--he was sensational. And he exposed the amnesty crowd. The main proponent being McCain who lied to the public about not supporting anmnesty and about wanting to secure our borders. Duncan Hunter was second and gave some tough answers to tough questions.
pistol426pete | 05.16.07 12:33 PM
|
If Giuliani is the nonminee, a small but significant number of religious conservatives will not show up on election day. And he will not win enough Indpendents to make up for that.
Somebody like Fred Thompson has to be the guy. Or a Giuliani from the Midwest. Most of the country has forgotten 9-11. Nobody else in this field can hack it. McCain is just too old.
JKnox | 05.16.07 12:49 PM
|
Romney, by far, is STILL the most articulate, intelligent and competent candidate! Truth be told! And of course he is the ONLY one, by consensus across both parties, who LOOKS Presidential! Is that important? Well, history cannot lie!...and we can't avoid such a concept especially with today's media-frenzy world!
ken | 05.16.07 12:57 PM
|
Romney does not look "presidential" in my opinion - he looks like a very successful used car salesman. Nothing wrong with that but there's just something too plastic, too smarmy about him.
Huckabee has a snowball's chance but perhaps he's setting himself up for serious consideration as
VP.
joan | 05.16.07 03:27 PM
|
Why is it that the 'powers that be' (the media, for one) decide that there are two tiers of candidates and who's on what tier? Why are so many people accepting what they're telling us?
Each candidate in the so-called top tier has some major flaws. McCain's is on illegal immigration, a guest worker program, and pathway to citizenship for illegals. I don't know about you, but my response to that is much louder than just a "No, thank you." (I follow the illegal immigration issue closely. He co-sponsored the McCain/Kennedy amnesty legislation last year. Then there's the McCain/Feingold bill. Enough said.)
I'm not comfortable with some of Gulianni's views or with Romney's flip-flopping.
Anyway, I believe we must look at the other seven candidates. And, I believe, illegal immigration and border security are terribly important. Think about it: Why are we fighting a War on Terror in Iraq and leaving the borders to our country open to terrorists, criminals, gang members and drug runners?
Tom Tancredo made good points last night at the presidential debate- and not just on illegal immigration. His "Why are we worrying about what constitutes torture when America has just been bombed, there are dead and injured Americans, and we believe there may be another attack" episode was the kind of response a president should have. Do you think terrorists debate about what constitutes torture?
I'm giving Tom a chance. He may be in a David vs. Goliath battle, but David won.
gotomtancredogo | 05.16.07 03:48 PM
|
I, too, thought Tancredo won, followed closely by Huckabee.
I'm a little peeved about these "tiers" the mainstream news is portraying. in 1991 at this time, no one had heard of Bill Clinton. Unfortunately, that changed, but I digress...
No way McCain will win, I thought he was awful and he's retread tires. Guliani is too liberal to get the nomination and Romney is too liberal/flip-flop. Gilmore's not-so-conservative past will be exposed and he's too establishment.
Paul's done and We'd elect the Lucky Charm leprechaun before Thompson. Brownback looks like a conservative Al Gore with his mannerisms.
That leaves Hunter, Tancredo, and Huckabee. Huckabee has the best story and Tancredo the best lock on any one issue.
Could get interesting...
Mike | 05.16.07 05:44 PM
|
Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo added some life to the debate. Ron Paul at least let Rudy parade his America's Mayor routine. All of us need to keep in the backs of our minds the comments Ron Paul made. Sometimes I feel that those type comments are not welcome by the elites and media. Was anyone else surprised how well Paul did in the Fox Poll
Jerry Sims | 05.16.07 07:22 PM
|
I was very impressed with Tancredo and Hunter. They both were passionate about immigration but they were just as passionate about the war. They both were against bigger government, government waste and spending. I'll be watching these two men.
Elizabeth | 05.16.07 07:27 PM
|
If our country is attacked; with more coming - which guy is going to do WHATEVER it takes to save us???? It's that simple folks. GO TANCREDO!!!
SalemTina | 05.17.07 12:22 AM
|
Tom Tancredo won the debate, he's the only candidate that answered the question asked & answered them honestly. He's also strongest on the border. He CAN WIN!!!
Scott | 05.17.07 10:01 AM
|
Ron Paul is too intelligent and candid for the American people. What does that mean? He gets the entire "big picture" with the elite and our plummeting economy. It also means he needs to polish up a bit to have a chance - like, pander to the crowd, as much as I hate that. We need him to take this country back to freedom - he is our only hope.
Bonnie | 05.17.07 07:00 PM
|
I've been following Tom Tancrado for a while now, and all the issues, especially the "in your face" non-citizens demanding amnesty, I believe he will give us the biggest bang for our buck. He is first for America, and second for Americans and the law. He will send these illegals packing. He will get our Border Agents out, and put the criminals in jail or out the door. Help him help us. Please go on-line and donate to him now. Read his book "In Mortal Danger" - he knows the truth and speaks it. Don't stop Tom - you may not have the most money, but you have the right issue. We need someone in our corner.
Barbara Sands | 05.17.07 09:00 PM
|
In the days since the debate, it has been all over the news that Ron Paul was right and that Flip-Flop Guiliani should read the 9/11 Commission Report.
Sir: (LTR to SEN SPECTOR/CASEY, REP CARNEY, SPEAKER PELOSI AND MANY OTHERS)
HOW DO YOU JUSTIFY SELLING OUT AMERICA WITH AMNESTY?
Do you think everyone is stupid, or is it you? Why are you giving George Bush what he wants when you know full well, it is NOT WHAT U.S. CITIZENS WANT?
Two days ago, we knew very little…..now we have learned:
Why Bush wants amnesty so badly.
Why the 700 miles of border fence approved/funded last year wasn’t built.
Why we are going to allow Mexican truckers free reign on our highways.
Why we need the superhighway.
And lots more!
We have read the Task Force Report, “Building a North American Community.” You fools have allowed Bush to commit the U.S. to this project, which has been endorsed by the U.S. council on Foreign Relations, Canadian Council of Chief Executives, and the Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos. And may we remind you, NONE of these people have a right to be making a decision for the citizens of the United States.
Also involved is education, our police and military forces, and government classified information.
Bush wants this to be a done deal before he leaves office, and you are handing it to him on a silver platter. Something as serious as giving away the U.S.’s sovereignty, should be decided by the people…..not a few unelected Americans, Canadians and Mexicans.
Bush is a megalomaniac obsessed with power He thinks the NAU is going to do for him what the invasion of Iraq hasn’t.
We would like an answer as to why you are allowing this, aiding and abetting even, and NOT a form letter. By giving 20,000,000 illegal aliens that have broken the law yet another amnesty, is reprehensible. By allowing organizations like La Raza input on this bill, while excluding U.S. citizens, is beyond any kind of decent description.
Callie369 | 05.18.07 06:11 PM
|
Tom Tancredo won. This man appears to be right for America. Close the border now!
Mike Tea | 05.19.07 07:02 AM
|
Tancredo did well but his delivery is often stuttered as if he's searching for the right words. If he were a better orator he'd be a sure thing (I've given him money)!
After watching "fair and balanced" Fox's "Campaign Carl" and Sean Vannity attack Ron Paul and qualify the poll results with their personal opinions (yes I unerstand Vannity is a Kool-aid drinking Bushbot, "top tier" guy who is an opinion giver- but Carl?) about how the text poll (giving Ron Paul the lead) must be wrong, it made me research Ron Paul. I'd say their attempts to marginalize Ron Paul backfired! I'm now a huge Ron Paul fan with Tom Tancredo a close second.
Joe M | 05.21.07 05:10 PM
|
Don't Worry, Be Happy! =)
Sidney | 03.02.08 06:49 AM
|
Post a comment
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
