I had the opportunity to watch the big Republican debate last night (hey, it was raining and I couldn’t go watch the grass grow). My grades for each of the candidates. Definitely need to learn more about Jim Gilmore.
- Duncan Hunter - D - did nothing to distinguish himself, often looked uninformed. Terrible camera presence.
- Jim Gilmore - A - never heard of him but he came across as someone with fire in his belly. Good presence in front of the camera.
- John McCain - D - needs to go away. Nothing new here, even pulled the POW line out.
- Mike Huckabee - B - did okay but needs to show a bit more fire.
- Mitt Romney - F - maybe I just don’t like plastic men.
- Ron Paul - D - did well on some issues, looked bizarre on others. When they asked if he had ever made a decision that impacted a lot of people and he said, well, no, I never have………..
- Rudy Giuliani - C - where is this strong leader we keep hearing about? Using Ron Paul’s argument about states rights for abortion but federalism everywhere else is disingenuous at best, a straight up deception at worst.
- Sam Brownback - F - is he running for president or diversity club leader?
- Tom Tancredo - F - can you say deer in headlights? Dude needs to go beyond the border issue - there is a whole country to deal with as President.
- Tommy Thompson - B - solid performance but man, he has a face made for radio.
Speaking of radio, I had occasion to listen to Pat Gray of KSEV for a few minutes this morning. He was lampooning Ron Paul’s statement about never abusing habeas corpus. Pat actually said “the Ramos/Compean issue is far more important than habeas corpus”. Proof positive that a brain is not required to be a talk show host.
Filed Under Uncategorized ·
Comments
48 Responses to “Grading the Repubs”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...LST Book Club
-
Defending Identity: Its Indispensable Role in Protecting Democracy
by Natan Sharansky -
Fear No Evil
by Natan Sharansky -
The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror
by Anatoly Shcharansky -
The Jewish State: The Struggle for Israel's Soul
by Yoram Hazony -
Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There
by David Brooks -
Snobbery: The American Version
by Joseph Epstein -
A Conflict of Visions: Idealogical Origins of Political Struggles
by Thomas Sowell
MOVE OUT DA’ WAY!! BigJolly on a rampage.
The GOP is in deep _____ !!!
I dont think The Tank wants to be president. I think he wants to make damn sure the border problem doesnt get swept under the carpet…like most if not all reps and dems would like it to.
Jim Gilmore gained the most.
He went from “Who’s THAT guy?” to “Wow! Who’s this guy!?”.
#2 - the country is in deep ______!!!
I pretty much agree with bigjolly on this one with a couple of exceptions.
I agree with you Bigj
DJ,
Go home, wash and dry the cammo, a more practical solution may be in the works
Oh, no. izzy and eric agree with me. Matt is going to suspend me.
No eric.
A big heavy dose of Clinton and Obama will work well for me. My prediction? Pain!
I am into peaceful protests and civil disobedience.
The “debate” was nothing more than a chance for Matthews to bash Bush and try to get sound bites for his show in the process..I mean, come on, questions about Scooter Libby and Karl Rove?
I thought that Mitt Romney looked and sounded the best. His answer on the abortion questions and how he changed from pro choice to pro life was reasonable.
Ron Paul was entertaining…in a shake- your -head -and -wonder -what -he’s -been -smoking, kind of way.
McCain was trying to be tough, and I was getting sick of all the hand chops.
What irked me the most was how most tried to compare themselves to President Reagan…as if they were even close to being the type of man he was!
Ruddy was not as strong as usual and looked nervous to me.
I was hoping for a more impressive showing from Tancredo.
suspend you from what???
really tell us…
Maybe he’ll make you go to the next center piece and accourtanments showing for his wedding
Lizzie, I agree. How about those inane questions? Like the Clinton in the Whitehouse question. I liked Romney’s answer: “Are you kidding?” I think Romney did the best, seemed most relaxed. For instance, his answer on “What do you hate about America?” was good. Rudy did seem nervous. I won’t watch another until we get Brit Hume of someone with credibility to moderate.
Continued from above post as I hit the submit button too soon….
All last night was, was a dog and pony show designed to give the libs plenty of clips and memes to circulate for the next 18 months.
The questions were mostly crap, especially the questions culled from the internet..my year-old asks better questions about the war and the economy than the average basement dweller.
If Fred Thompson enters the race, then things might get interesting…we’ll see, but if the base is hoping that he’s the next Ronaldus Maximus, then they are going to be disappointed.
There was only one Ronald Reagan.
Neocon…Romney clearly won the debate on style points alone…some might call him plastic looking, but he did look presidential.
My ideal panel for debating is Brit Hume and Tim Russert, both of whom have a good reputation.
Sorry but Romney looked about as presidential as this guy.
Oh me, Oh my, I see no one worth voting for!
I am so disgusted
#15 bigjolly…
Yes, he’s polished, but I thought that he was one of the most articulate men up there, even if they all looked like carved creme cheese.
Here’s some interesting feedback from various blogs.
http://newsbusters.org/stories/politico_what_do_you_dislike_about_america.html
I was listening a bit to the “Debate”/Press Conference with Michael Savage’s commentary. It was embarassing.
Mathews get an F-. He’s got the worst rated show on PMSNBC and a liberal hack, how’d he get this gig?
And the dinocrats are afraid of little old fox news?
How in the hell did we get here!?
Run Fred Run!
here is bush trying to get more oil.
http://johnsoncity.blogspot.com/uploaded_images/050426_BUSH-ABDULLAH_ex-745907.jpg
Zippy_Slug…was it just me, or did you think that the moderator’s walking confrontationally accross the stage rather obnoxious?
RFLMO Your comment on Pat Grey is so right on!
I do not think that your comment on Dr. Paul is accurate. Remember he raised the issue of whether the question was addressing political versus individual decisions. And he brought out an example in each sphere: as a doctor and his vote against allowing the POTUS to act on behalf of the UN.
My complain against Dr. Paul is on his answer on “global warming and Algore.” He (and a couple of others) were barely given time and Dr. Paul should have attacked Algore’s hypocrisy. Dr. Paul should have suggested to Algore to lose some weight to help increase is personal CAFE (as in less weight less fuel to move) performance.
The real sad part of the whole event was Chris Mathews. What a joke. I am surprised he sis not wear a Romney/Gulliani for President t-shirt.
I read somehwere that a blogger was taking a [liquor] shot for every mention of Ronald Reagan. I do not think that she blogged much.
Also, I wished that Dr. Paul would have turned the question about amending the Constitution (to allow someone like California’s governor to run for POTUS) into his push for amending the Constitution to do away with automatic citizenship for those born to non-citizens.
But the format of the debate, not to mention the moderator and questioners, sucked.
#23 Jaime…I too was getting sick of all of the mention of Ronald Reagan…I hate ass kissers.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55517
On Fred Thompson:
(snip)
… Fred Thompson has two Achilles heels. His two weak spots are actually two sides of the same coin. They are: 1) his vote to expand NAFTA, and 2) his vote to relax the rules on migrant farm workers. In both cases, while a member of the United States Senate, he voted in favor of the globalist position. And, those two were not his only globalist votes.
(snip)
Thompson also voted in favor of the McCain campaign-finance reform laws.
…So … why are so many conservatives clamoring for Thompson?
Especially here in Tennessee, a lot of it seems to do with his public persona as a down-home country kinda guy. And, although it sometimes seems that the encyclopedia has Uncle Fred’s photo next to an entry about the phrase “Southern gentleman,” it remains true that Thompson was also a high-priced Washington lobbyist for many years. Although he still has a lot of friends in Lawrenceburg and Nashville, it remains true that most of his time is spent in Manhattan and Hollywood. Although it’s true that Ol’ Fred drove a red pickup truck to campaign appearances when he ran for Al Gore’s vacated seat in the U.S. Senate, it’s also true that Fred only drove that truck a few blocks at a time before it was put on the flatbed hauler until the next campaign speech.
So, just how is it that everything Fred Thompson says lately, and everything he doesn’t say, becomes headline news? How is it that so many country-fried Southerners are swooning over a guy that spends most of his time beneath the skies of New York City? How is it that a man not running for president gets more media attention than all of the people running for president combined? Isn’t that sort of treatment normally reserved only for those that have been pre-anointed, via back-room deals, by the insider globalist elite? Isn’t that how the “lamestream” news media treat the likes of Hillary Clinton? Doesn’t this sort of fawning normally cause conservatives to become immediately suspect of the media’s new darling?
Hmm … Maybe those are some questions worth pondering.
#21: Lizzie - I didn’t sit in front of the TV to watch.. I just caught about 15 minutes on the radio. It was about all I could take anyway. Probably better. If someone was walking around asking questions, that would have annoyed me to no end.
…So … why are so many conservatives clamoring for Thompson?
Maybe - just maybe - because he is the lone voice of REASON crying in the PC wilderness!!!
I thought Romney was the most polished and presidential as well. I doubt the Repub base will ever get past his momonism. And his flip flopping will make for a pretty easy target as things get closer to the election.
Rudy needs to get over the fact that he was mayor of NY. Enough already…we get it. You were the mayor of NY during 9/11. Please answer one question without bringing it up. And smooth move putting the emergency preparedness office in the World Trade Center. If elected, will you move the Dept of Homeland Security to Baghdad?
McCain was passionate but came off as a bit of a raving warmongerer to me. Most of America is sick of fighting war…or at least the wrong war anyways. He uses talking points too much. That whole “they’ll follow us home” rhetoric doesn’t fly with me. I think its a lame argument especially given that the real alqueda threat (and Osama) is in Pakistan. And we ain’t doin a thing about that.
Overall, I’d say the repubs are in trouble. These candidates are going to have a tough time getting elected by their own base. None of them seem to fit the mold.
I want to know why our RNC would allow the debate to be moderated by Chris Mathews? To me it’s a start example of what is wrong with the republican party. Do we really think if a liberal, wild-eyed, showman like Chris Mathews is best to ask questions of our candidates… then we deserve to loose. The liberals always have an agenda……. as opposed to us, we can’t even make one.
Your D assessment of Ron is WRONG.
Ron Paul was the clear winner. No one else is acceptable. But, MSNBC won’t admit he won in the ratings, ABC did not even include him in the list!
Do they think the public won’t notice?
Ron is the only one that doesn’t take marching orders from the same bunch — as in, Bush is blamed for the war but Clinton is the one who signed the policy in ‘98
Wake up America! Ron is 2nd in fundraising in NH.
If you want a quasi conservative with a pretty face, vote for Mitt. But if you want a principled conservative who kowtows to no one, Paul is the one.
The mainstream media has proven itself irrelevant once again.
Matthews was an embarrassment with his combativeness and interference and biased and contentious questions.
This was about comparing REPUBLICAN values amongst the 10 not whether they like Clinton or not.
Using the right left paradigm is all the cons know how to do you see?
Look, Ron Paul is a joke. He is a third rate politition that speaks in such ambiguaties that he has trouble keeping them straight. His postions are various issues are so inconsistent I don’t think the wildest liberal on pcp could holucinate enough to make sense of it.
The comment on Pat Gray is out of bounds. I listened to Pat and Edd this morning. Habeous Corpus is for citizens. If someone calls themselves a conservative and is worried about the rights of enemy combatants or even projects how we are currently dealing with enemy combatants on to US Citizens then I do think they are smoking something illegal. We have more serious concerns to be brought up and addressed in a debate of “conservatives” than habeous corpus.
#31 NH4RonPaul
Yeah, you’re right, the D was wrong. I probably should have given him an F but I wrote this shortly after hearing Pat Gray’s inane rantings.
#32 texanbychoice
Not only is it not out of bounds but if you think that Ramos/Compean are more important than one of the most fundamental rights we have as free people (not to be detained and held prisoner without some type of recourse)…..
HC 1
HC 2
HC 3
And thousands more. This fundamental right is one of the foundations of American freedom.
#33 bigjolly
No one has said or is saying that HC is not important. Of course it is a fundamental right. Again, no one is attempting to minimize the improtance. The point is to take precious time in a national debate shows how narrowly he thinks. He has a national audience and he talks about that. Crazy. Why not talk about how a Federal Prosecuter is targeting HISPANIC boarder patrol agents for doing their job. That would get you more traction and air time and publicity. He may as well discussed the benefits of oxygen in the air.
So stop take a deep breath…think…put things in context to todays issues and you may get the point. This also reminds me of comic strip I saw once, I think “Non-sequiter” maybe. An older couple at the beach and a monster is coming out of the water and the wife says something to the effect “Does this bathing suit make my butt look big”. Let’s pay attention to what is going on.
#34 texanbychoice
Not true. Pat Gray said it. Ignorance is bliss about some things, that is true. But ignorance about habeas corpus is dangerous. To equate it in any way with R/C is just plain ignorant, no other way to say it.
If you pay attention to what is going on in the name of “conservatism” you might understand. Think about that.
Spin away just another hit piece against Ron Paul. He clearly stood for real conservative values. You were critical concerning his answer to the question of making a decision that effected large numbers of people. Well his bad, he didn’t vote to get 3000 plus young Americans to killed in a war based on lies. How horrible he didn’t want to rush into a foreign war. He believes in personal responsibility and not a dictatorship. In a government that doesn’t try to micro manage the lives of all the people in the country we would want representatives and not leaders. He wants you to be in charge of your own life and have the freedom to make those choices.
Please read the Military Commissions Act. It states anyone (even a citizen) who is identified as an enemy combatant loses the right to Habeous Corpus (trial by jury when charges concerning a crime have been filed in open court). The Military Commissions Act is about the creation of an American KGB with secret trials where the accused aren’t allowed to face their accusers and forced into false confessions. This is an extremely dangerous law mostly because people don’t read the darn thing and believe the spin that says it is only for foreign nationals. This false information about this law is passed on by people who haven’t read the law and post to blogs misrepresenting the actual law. It is a chill on freedom of speech.
I have more concern that when the Military Commissions Act falls into the hands of the Liberals they will round up potential political rivals and whisk them away to secret prisons without benefit of a public trial. If you have ever been on a college campus especially a Liberal one you can see how violent they can become against anyone that doesn’t agree with their socialist agenda. Ever been to an Environmentalist event and poked holes in their fear mongering science just imagine what it will be like when they can utilize the Military Commissions act against their political enemies. You should be very concerned this Act gives way too much power to government and whoever is in charge of that government.
Ron Paul is dangerous. He wants to negotiate with terrorists. He wants open borders. He wants to end the war on terror. Not only is he dangerous, he is deranged. BTW, he will get absolutely no where in the primaries. He’s at 1% in te polls. Sorry Jaime, this man is bad for America.
You’re completely wrong about Ron Paul.
The only people who don’t want Ron Paul as president are the “conservatives” who don’t even know what the word “conservative” means, and the international bankers who control this country and bleed the people dry through their fiat monetary system.
You clearly either have no concept what that means or are just another of the establishment media puppets taking orders from on high to stamp out the overwhelming and growing Ron Paul frenzy.
Let me tell you something right now, you can’t hide Ron Paul away forever on page 12, and the people of this country are tired of being driven like cattle to think what rich mobsters in New York and Europe tell us to think.
I agree with your assessments on Romney and McCain though. They’ve been bought and paid for long ago. Just like Giuliani.
# texanbychoice Says:
May 4th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
Look, Ron Paul is a joke. He is a third rate politition that speaks in such ambiguaties that he has trouble keeping them straight. His postions are various issues are so inconsistent I don’t think the wildest liberal on pcp could holucinate enough to make sense of it.
The comment on Pat Gray is out of bounds. I listened to Pat and Edd this morning. Habeous Corpus is for citizens. If someone calls themselves a conservative and is worried about the rights of enemy combatants or even projects how we are currently dealing with enemy combatants on to US Citizens then I do think they are smoking something illegal. We have more serious concerns to be brought up and addressed in a debate of “conservatives” than habeous corpus.
————–
Clearly you need to study your constitution, boy.
First, learn to SPELL “habeas corpus”, then learn what it means…
You know all those Jews and other “criminals” Hitler threw in jails during World War 2? Yeah, they didn’t have habeas corpus either.
This is how totalitarianism works, son. I am amazed sometimes how stupid and uneducated people are. Some of you give REAL conservatives (aka NON neo-cons) a bad name.
Some of you are even so screwed up in the head, you’ll profess to love Jesus Christ, yet insist that “terrorists have no rights because they attacked us”. Jesus was also attacked by the Pharisees and you didn’t see him EVER calling on his disciples to throw them in gulags or put a bullet through their heads, did you.
Being a man doesn’t mean you have to act like a fool. Wise up and challenge yourself to expand your mind and learn a little something before you go spouting your ignorant mouth off about it. mmmkay?
#36 libertylover
How you can call this a “hit piece” against Ron Paul is beyond me. One sentence with a bad grade doesn’t a hit piece make. Plus the fact that I defended his habeas corpus comment in the “hit piece”. I have read the MCA and don’t like the power given to the President.
#38 eeltooth
Establishment? Taking orders? Yeah, okiedokie.
Look, you need to understand something - Ron Paul has no chance to be President. None, nada, zip. You may like his view of how government should work but he has no chance. So now what?
Perhaps you need to find another candidate that you can be passionate about, work hard for, vote for. Or you can continue to criticize people that point out he has no chance.
RON PAUL has NO CHANCE.
Dr. Paul has no chance? Maybe if all who like Dr. Paul but think that he has “no chance” would actually vore for him things might be different.
I do not think this was a hit piece against Dr. Paul. I do think that bigjolly is wrong.
Dr. Paul for years has been trying to get the uS out of the UN. One of the issues that has caused him to be marginalized by the GOP. Dr. Pau; has been dealing with banking and monetary policies for years. Not glamorous but he has been in the trenches for years. Ask Greenspan what he thinks about Dr. Paul?
Dr. Paul is for amending the Constitution to undo the mess of automatic citizenship of babies born to non-citizens.
#32 How can I put this tactfully … you are just plain ignorant. When was the last time you read the Constitution of these uS? Have you read any history on the ratification debates, Virginia and kentucky Resolutions, nullification, secession, etc? Maybe you will learn something.
#37 You are completely wrong. Dr. Paul says talk. Just like these uS talked with China, Russia, North Korea, etc. Dr. Paul is not for open borders, at least, until the welfare state is dismantled. When do you think that will happen.
Ron Paul is a libertarian, he is against war for any reason (even defending ourselves) and he is for open borders. Someone needs to look up the Libertaran Party and see what they stand for. He is all talk and no show. Show me something he has done/sponsored. He has a snowball’s chance in hell.
It is time I, as your humble moderator, clear some things up. This was not a hit piece on Ron Paul.
Honest criticism uses words like “looked bizarre”.
Hit piece which is more in line with what I feel about Ron Paul would have used words like “looked like a total Jackass”.
Now that we have that cleared up and the defining boundaries set we can move along.
#43 Do you think that we should be out of the UN? Do you think that we should be out of WTO? Do you think that fiat money is unconstitutional? Do you think that printing money to generate more debt is a problem?
Dr. Paul main enphasis has been money and banking. Where are the so called “conservatives” in these issues? AWOL while real income for the average citizen decreases because of FedRes (Federal Reserve) inflationary policies. Ever wondered what the Founding Fathers said about central banking and fiat money? Hmm, does the Constitution has something to say about this? Like GOP leaders have said about war declarations, those are quaint anachronisms? And the GOP is supposed to be the party which follows the Constitution.
Too essoteric for the average person to understand? No.
Too darn limiting to whoever is ruling.
Maybe it is a good thing that the GOP is moribund.
News Flash
I am a libertarian but I am an American first. Call me a strong Constitutionalist also. But more than anything else I am a realist. I will be the first to say that the US does not want a libertarian as president.
1. You think border porous borders exist now? There will be no border control.
I get wrapped around the axle with Bush but on one thing he is right whether I agree how he has prosecuted the war. There comes a time when DEFENDING ones self ya gotta take the fight to the other guy. That IS why we are in Iraq.
2. Libertarians including Ron Paul are against “any war”.
3. Abortions would be legal no matter how they are performed or win.
While I have a lot of problems with the “war on drugs” I believe that prohibiting the legalization of “recreational drug use” is necessary.
4. All recreational drugs would be legalized.
Wanting to throw the UN out is nice but in the long run, what will it matter? The UN as an organization will still exist.
5. Furthermore libertarians have a world economic view. If one was to extrapolate their ideas to their logical end, the US would have to turn their law making and governance to some world court just to compete. So the argument of leaving the WTO is bogus also.
My ideal government is a mix of at least two parties and three would be better. Frankly I am not comfortable with 1 party controlling the two house and the presidency simply because of the extremes that occur. I do not care for party politics at all.
#46 So much nonsense. And if you are a libertarian I am a purple baboon. I am not a libertarian but I do know libertarianism well.
Dr. Paul is not a libertarian, despite what many people believe.
1) Libertarians are not against all wars but are against initiating violence. Libertarianism do believe in defensive wars. A foundational tenet of libertarianism is “do not initiate aggression.”
2) On the drug issue. Dr. Paul has been very clear on this. The Constitution grants zero authority to the Federal government to prohibit recreational drug use. That’s it. It is up to the States to handle the issue. Drug smuggling is a separate issue. Like smuggling sugar cane. How come that it took an amendment to prohibit recreational alcohol use to grant the Federal government authority over the issue but when it comes to issues like tobbacco and non-alcoholic drugs …? Unless you think that the Inter-state Commerce Clause grants such an authority, do you?
3) Abortions are legal now and have been for a number of years. Again, another issue that you are uninformed. That is a State matter and not a Federal one. Murders are State issues and not Federal. If you were not aware libertarians are split on abortion. Those libertarians recognize that the baby is a separate entity (science has demonstrated that) do oppose abortion by the non-initiation of force principle.
4) Iraq. Yes, they were sucha threat to us that when Dr. Paul attempted to get the Congress to pass a Declaration of War Resolution he was told by the GOP leadership that such thing was a quaint anachronism. Dr. Paul would probably voted against it, so would have I. But, at least, with a Declaration of War the Constitution would have been followed. Not even a War Declaration against Afghanistan!
#46 is completely off.
I’m a libertarian, and the LAST thing I want is some international court system. Have you read a WORD Dr. Paul has said?
I don’t know where people get this nutty stuff.
Dr. Paul is clearly and consistently:
1. Opposed to illegal immigration (not all libertarians agree with this, but many do). He says that illegal immigrants should not have access to welfare entitlements, etc. What a novel idea. He is for STRONG border security (unlike Bush who just wants a giant wall that will make his contracter friends rich)
2. Opposed to all pork spending (NEVER votes for a bill that has ANY spending in it not EXPRESSLY authorize by the constitution)
3. Opposed to raising taxes (has NEVER voted to raise taxes, and has NEVER voted for an unbalanced budget). He has consistently had the highest rating by the National Taxpayers Union…
4. Opposed to entangling foregin alliances and interventionist military action. He is completely FOR a strong defense.
5. Completely Pro-2nd amendment. He has NEVER voted to restrict gun ownership in any way.
6. Completely Pro-Life. He is an OBG that has delivered 4000 babies and believes abortion should be illegal. However, he believes the constitution does not authorize the federal government to regulate this, and beleivese that this should be a matter for states to decide.
7. He is the ULTIMATE fiscally responsible conservative. He even returns a portion of his congressoinal budget to the treasury every year. He has supported legislation that would cause a pay-cut in congressional pay if an unbalanced budget is passed.
8. He doesn’t “like” drugs, but he believes the Federal government has NO constitutional jurisdiction over this matter. I agree.
Anyway, I’m not going to try to convince anybody to support Paul. I just don’t like to hear anyone saying he is “inconsistent.”
If you look at his actual voting record he is more consistent than any politician I can think of in the last century.
-Chad