May 04, 2007
The Debate: Post-Spin Analysis
Rudy Giuliani’s answers on Iraq, terrorism and national security were spot on and crisp. His body language showed confidence. For nearly every question about domestic policy, he was able to pivot to his experiences in New York City. He made ample use of Ronald Reagan analogies, and he almost never lost his rhythm – except for his slight hesitation when asked to distinguish between Sunni and Shia Muslims. Viewers could see the gears shifting in his mind. Still, he answered the question correctly.
And his answer on Roe v. Wade – he allowed that he would be “OK” if the Supreme Court overturned it – was intellectually honest, to a degree. In Rudy’s mind, a “strict constructionist” judge could very well hold that Roe was settled law, or that it was unconstitutional.
There the paper rips. Giuliani is on one side of the ledger, and all of his Republican opponents are on the other side. And “OK” is kinda hedgy – it doesn’t get the nub of the issue, which is what Giuliani personally thinks of Roe. The AP chose to lede, for a while, with the distinction on abortion. Perhaps for the first time, Republican primary voters actually saw Giuliani expose himself on abortion and did so in comparative context. It’s one thing to intuit, or to think about Giuliani’s cultural liberalism. It’s another thing to see how sharply it contrasts with his opponents. Conservative bloggers who KNOW Giuliani’s views took umbrage.
National Review's Rich Lowry put it best: "This might be ... the night when Rudy stopped being solely the hero of 9/11 and started being a presidential candidate like everyone else. It was inevitable at some point."
BTW: he's going to get some heat for his Terri Schiavo answer. Tonight, Giuliani said the matter should have been left to the courts. But in '04, he supported the federal government's intervention.
Two audiences: some members of the media thought that John McCain could have done better, been more self-assured, been less spastic on stage. Others, like David Yepsen, loved his performance. On substance, he was pitch-perfect. He took on the Democrats. He grew angry when speaking of the Democrats and Iraq; he grew angry when discussing the Bush Administration’s mistakes on Iraq; he reminded the audience of his credentials; he answered all the cultural questions with aplomb. Stem cells and evolution are his apostasies -- but in a debate where Giuliani’s abortion positions stood out, McCain landed safely. Several conservative bloggers gave McCain the victory. He was, in their eyes, the most credible candidate telling them what they wanted to hear (and even a little of what they didn't).
Mitt Romney is great with first impressions, and it’s hard to say whether the spit-polish of his answers dripped off the stage… or whether Romney appeared natural and comfortable. He certainly seemed presidential. He flubbed no question. His knowledge was evident. He managed to put to rest the debate about whether he was ashamed of his health care plan. He did not try to pander to cultural conservatives. He did not have to answer a question about his faith (as such), but was ready with a spontaneous – as in, this didn’t come up in debate prep – answer about Catholics and religious practice. He won new fans with his performance tonight.
For the first time, the former governor of Arkansas seemed presidential. On the stage with him were his equals, not his betters. Mike Huckabee occasionally has a problem with pre-rehearsed stories and answers; Thursday night, he seemed at ease and his responses were agile. The problem: if you happened upon Huckabee for the first time, you would not know that his cultural conservative impulses are more deeply ingrained than McCain’s, Giuliani’s or Romney’s. Still – a good night for him.
Sam Brownback was magnanimous, refusing several times to criticize the frontrunners, acknowledging that he could live with a pro-choice nominee, and making no enemies – even of his enemies, like Mitt Romney. A solid performance.
Given the opportunity to challenge McCain on immigration, Tom Tancredo punted, basically. (It's not enough to state what you believe; you gotta tell us why the other guy is wrong). He made no gaffes, but he did
not distinguish himself tonight.
Ron Paul, the anti-war Republican stood out, and his answers were the talk of the spin room – well, parts of it, anyway. Our problem: until he starts to take votes from someone else, we don’t know where to place him.
Tommy Thompson -- some rambling answers on Iraq did little justice to the guy with the second-best resume out there.
Jim Gilmore -- the former Virginia governor did not leap ahead of his compadres.
And Fred Thompson. At least five guys on that stage were presidential. If he gets in too late, will Republicans be comfortable enough with the field by then? [MARC AMBINDER]
Posted at 01:04 AM
Comments
I think the best ideas came from Ron Paul and John McCain (minus the latter's support for the war). These guys are both intelligent and men of principle. Most of the other candidates have one of those qualities, but not both. I hope Ron Paul gets the Republican nod myself.
Derek | 05.04.07 04:24 AM
 |
Ron Paul and Huckabee were very precise and clearly wn the debate. McCain was too angry sounding, Giuliani was below average, Romney was just rhetoric and no substance.
Tim | 05.04.07 08:59 AM
|
Why was everyone talking about Iran and not Iraq? Republicans do not want to give an impression that they will start another war if they are elected. Americans don't like war anymore after the Iraq fiasco. The Bush rhetoric that Giuliani, McCain used about Iran is not going to work anymore. This time any agressive candidate will loose. Thats why people like Huckabee stood out since he talked more about values, jobs than Iran.
TM | 05.04.07 09:13 AM
|
May 04, 2007
Romney's Debate Flip-Flop
Deal Hudson
http://dealwhudson.typepad.com/deal_w_hudson/2007/05/romneys_debate_.html
I sent out an e-mail to about 60 Catholic leaders around the nation this morning asking what they thought of the debate. Several of them brought this one issue to my attention:
During last night’s debate host Chris Matthews asked former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney his opinion on whether or not the bishops should deny communion to pro-choice catholic politicians. Here was Gov. Romney’s response: “I don’t say anything to Roman Catholic bishops. They can do whatever the heck they want. Roman Catholic bishops are in a private institution, a religion, and they can do whatever they want in a religion.”
This answer represents a significant shift in Gov. Romney’s position. As governor of Massachusetts, Romney ordered Catholic hospitals to administer emergency contraception to women who claim they had been raped.
According to the Boston Herald on December 9th, 2005, “Gov. Mitt Romney abruptly ordered his administration to reverse course yesterday and require Catholic hospitals to provide emergency contraception medication to rape victims. In a turnaround that foes derided as politically motivated, Romney directed his Department of Public Health to scrap rules that exempted the Catholic institutions from a new law governing the medicine.”
This in and of itself represented “an Olympic-caliber double flip-flop,” according to a Herald editorial, as it represented a reversal of Romney’s original position.
Now it appears Romney is back to limiting the government’s ability to bully the Church.
Posted by Deal Hudson on May 04, 2007 at 10:47 AM
YankeeClipper | 05.04.07 01:22 PM
|
Romney came in unknown and left owning the stage. I feel he won the debate; the other two candidates just didn't feel like the country's next leader to me. Romney seemed natural in his skin, and balanced humor with clear answers. I had a hard time seeing the other candidates representing our country around the world, but as for Romney, I feel he has the intelligence, wit, and presence to represent us well. I certainly can see him now as our next President, and I will start following his activities.
Shawn | 05.04.07 01:51 PM
|
I was disgusted with the lack of time given to several candidates....certainly not a "fair" debate whatsoever. That being said, I was extremely impressed with Dr. Paul. Would have liked to have heard more of what he had to say.
It's strange but the more I try to research this man, the more stumbling blocks I seem to find. It's like MSNBC and the rest of the main stream media don't want Americans to hear Ron Paul's message....what are you so afraid of guys? That the people will FINALLY hear the truth???
Molly | 05.04.07 02:24 PM
|
YankeeClipper,
Nice hit piece. It's a Hospital not a church. They take public funding for people without insurance, thus they are subject to the laws of the state and city. Romney supported their efforts, then when found that he could not legally overturn the law created by the supermajority, his hands were tied, or do you prefer your Leader of the Executive Branch breaking the law.
Nathan W. | 05.04.07 04:23 PM
|
THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA MAKES A CONCERTED EFFORT TO AVOID RON PAUL AT ALL COST. HE IS NOT EVEN LISTED IN THE POLLS. YET, HE IS THE INTERNET FAVORITE. THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA HAS ABSOLUTELY NO CREDIBILITY WHATSOEVER ANYMORE, HENSE I AVOID THEM AT ALL COST.
BOB SMITH | 05.10.07 03:06 AM
|
Spalva-te | 02.29.08 05:09 PM
|
Spalva-te | 02.29.08 05:09 PM
|
Spalva-te | 02.29.08 05:09 PM
|
Spalva-yo | 02.29.08 05:09 PM
|
Spalva-yo | 02.29.08 05:09 PM
|
Spalva-yo | 02.29.08 05:11 PM
|
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.
