Subject to Debate
The early presidential debates are fun, political theater on a par with watching small kids play soccer--there's lots of running around in circles, but occasionally someone accidentally scores a goal. Over the past three days the nation got to see all 18 declared candidates from both sides. I missed the first debates back in April, but watched this time.
CNN, which hosted the debates, was bald in its statement of who they thought were meaningful candidates and who were just killing time. In both debates, they arranged the candidates on stage so that the front-runners were in the middle, and the presumed also-rans fanned out, until the most marginal were practically off the stage. The front-runners also got more screen time, and some of the candidates on the frontier could be seen fuming as they were ignored in their exile, raising their hands as if signally rude waiters. Wolf Blitzer was the moderator, spending most of his time trying to get the candidates to shut up, as they had ridiculously little time to address each question.
The Democrats squabbled on Sunday night. In the center, like a homecoming queen surrounded by her court, was Hillary Clinton. She was flanked by the only real competition she has, Barack Obama on her left, John Edwards to her right. There wasn't too much elbow-throwing. Clinton, as front-runner in the polls, tried to stay above the fray and concentrate her ire on Bush and the Republicans. Edwards, sitting in third position, did the most jostling in an attempt to break into the top two. I thought Obama was most impressive, seeming most in command of his facts, and giving Edwards a slap-down when the North Carolinian accused Obama of not being a leader in the Iraq war funding vote. Obama calmly reminded Edwards that he had voted for the war, while Obama had always been against it.
As for the others, Bill Richardson seemed a bit clumsy and anti-charismatic, and not very nimble. His answer to every question always came around to what he did in New Mexico. Joe Biden, who ran for president 20 years ago, seemed like he realized he had nothing to lose and sounded angry. Chris Dodd was largely ignored, perhaps because his answers were so bland. Dennis Kucinich, the most liberal of the candidates, pitched some grenades, but one was left marveling that his greatest achievement was marrying the stunning redhead who is a foot taller than he is. She would be the hottest First Lady ever! As for Mike Gravel, he sort of played the part of the cranky old uncle at a family gathering, everyone worried that he might say something inappropriate.
The content was predictable: all were in favor of wrapping up the Iraq war, though Biden was the only one in favor of not cutting off war funding, because he didn't want to endanger the troops. They all had health care plans, and they bickered about whose was best. They also disagreed about the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill, with Richardson defending it.
I went into the debate favoring Edwards, but I wasn't thrilled with his strident tone, which wasn't very presidential. I felt better about Obama.
Though I'm partisan and would never vote for a Republican, I tuned into their debate, a veritable orgy with 10 participants. It looked like a Rotarian meeting, ten pale white men anywhere from 45 to 75, but after there discussion of evolution one could be excused for thinking it was a meeting of the Flat-Earth Society. There was some pointed disagreement, but they all tripped over themselves declaring their belief in God.
As with the Dems, the front-runner was smack in the middle, Rudy Giuliani, flanked by John McCain and Mitt Romney. You practically needed a scorecard to keep track of the others, but a few stood out. A congressman named Tom Tancredo, dour and sinister, called for an end to legal immigration, certainly securing the Ku Klux Klan vote (I did enjoy him rebuking President Bush, though). At the other end of the stage, a libertarian named Ron Paul was the only voice against the war. I had trouble telling apart the former governors of Arkansas and Virginia.
Except for Paul, they were all for staying put in Iraq, though most conceded the war was mismanaged. There were some interesting disagreements, though. Giuliani continued his brave and perhaps foolhardy position that abortion, though wrong in his eyes, was the law of the land. McCain defended his immigration bill, and was eloquent in defense of Hispanics and others who contribute to our culture. And, amazingly, all seemed to agree that global warming was a real problem, though they're using that as an opening for nuclear power.
This dynamic may be changed by the entry of Fred Thompson into the race. He is a guy who really isn't a leader, but he's played one on TV, so he might have a leg up. If he's in the next debate, watch them all turn on him.
I was in the same situation as you, Jackrabbit, though I missed the Democrats' debate. Obama's retort to Edwards didn't impress me, because of course Obama wasn't in the Senate when he was opposing the war from the beginning. And that should lead anyone to realize that Edwards' criticisms of Obama and Clinton are easy for him to make now that he's no longer in the Senate. Where oh where is Gore?
ReplyDeleteThe Republican debate was mildly entertaining. I kept waiting for them to show some backbone, but they all kept coming off as pandering pansies. Even Ron Paul seemed to try sidestepping a few things. Yeah, Tancredo impressed me with his diss of Bush, and while his views of immigration are extreme (to be mild), I thought he was highlighting that the problem is far more serious than anyone really seems to want to admit (like how did the hit-and-run DWI driver who caused a massive fatal accident here on I-40 on Monday turn out to be an illegal immigrant who had already been deported twice?).
And all the candidates dancing around evolution while deferring to scientific opinion on global warming gave me a good chortle.
Haven't watched any of the debates yet, but I've been following most of the candidates for a good while now.
ReplyDeleteOn the GOP side, I think the only non-crazy person is probably Huckabee. I wouldn't vote for the guy, but he seems like an intelligent and reasonable guy.
On the Dem side, I find myself in the same boat as Jaydro, wondering if Gore will change his mind. If I had to pick now, I'd say Obama, but I don't have to pick now, so I'll sit and wait.
I do think that Richardson is an underrated candidate, though, mostly because he's a semi-lousy politician. But, I suspect that his foreign policy instincts are the most solid of the group, and that's probably going to be the most important quality for the new President to have.
Richardson is terrible on TV, so I don't think he has a snowball's chance in Hell. He might be a good pick for VP.
ReplyDeleteHuckabee came across a little too much like a wild-eyed zealot Tuesday night. Of course, because he's an ordained minister they gave him all the religion questions.
I liked Huckabee's appearances on the Daily Show, but when he shows up elsewhere and says he doesn't believe in evolution etc., I can no longer take him seriously.
ReplyDeleteAnd I forgot to mention before about the Republican debate: it seemed like so many times one of them would come up with a good sidestepping angle on a question, and then the others would just repeat it. Like on "don't ask don't tell" they all started copying Giulani's idea that it would be bad to introduce the abolishment of this discriminatory policy while we're at war--just too disruptive, etc. I kept wishing for good followups to so many of the poor answers, and that one should have gotten one like, oh, you mean like the disruption allowing blacks into combat positions posed during WWII?
And these debates seem to love the 24 questions, like the Fox debate (which I didn't watch) with their "two cities have been blown up, we've captured terrorists off the coast and taken them to Guantanamo, we know a third city has been targeted, would you authorize torture?" and then last night's "would you authorize the use of tactical nuclear weapons against Iran's nuclear program?" Oh my, isn't that exciting? Can't go for something mundane like, should the status of Israel's nuclear program be any part of negotiations with Iran?
Right now I would probably vote for Biden, though he doesn't excite me. Obama just seems like a charismatic X-factor to me.
Well, I don't think Richardson has a chance of winning, but I could consider voting for him.
ReplyDeleteI'd like Biden a lot more if he was more credible on domestic issues. His support for the bankruptcy bill a few years ago and his general willingness to explore Social Security privatization really annoy me.
Yeah, I would consider Richardson, too. He's come across well on some talk shows (I think I've seen him on Bill Maher's show), but I didn't see him in the debate.
ReplyDeleteYeah, well, Biden and that bankruptcy bill--he is from Delaware after all (cut to the end of Fight Club, which was in Wilmington, Delaware in the book). And for the record, I support Social Security privatization. I really hate it when the few things I agree with Bush on don't get anywhere....
Tancredo's remarks needed follow-up, too. Bilingual countries don't work? Uh, how about Canada, Switzerland, and India, which has dozens of languages and seems to be doing quite well lately.
ReplyDeleteAs a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, I'm all about who can get elected, which is why I'm down on Hillary, because she's got huge negatives, even though I think she's eminently competent. I think Edwards and Obama are both electable. Biden was my guy back in '88, but you don't think the other side would resurrect the plagiarism stuff if he was the nominee?
I really hate it when the few things I agree with Bush on don't get anywhere
ReplyDeleteWell, of course. It will NEVER get anywhere, because it's completely unnecessary and people would never vote for anyone who supported it ever again if it were enacted.
But, even though it will never get anywhere, it annoys me when Dems support it.
you don't think the other side would resurrect the plagiarism stuff if he was the nominee?
ReplyDeleteObviously they would, but in Biden's defense, I don't see why it matters. The other side will find something horribly damaging about any Dem nominee. If thye can't find anything true, they'll just make it up, and the media will report it as if it is true (if they're not making shit up themselves).
For example, say you nominate a Vietnam War hero. They'll claim that his medals were fraudulenty earned, and that he was a traitor besides. Say you nominate an extremely qualified Vice President, with a long and distinguished record of accomplishment in both that office and in the Congress, and on top of that, integrity beyond reproach; they'll say that he's a serial liar, craven political opportunist, and claimed to have invented the Internet.
Avoiding nominees because of what the other side might say is a sucker bet. Same goes for Hillary.
Hmmm, I just don't understand how overhauling the pyramid scheme that is Social Security could be completely unnecessary.
ReplyDeleteRe: bilingual countries--have you ever spent much time in Canada? I used to think it was sad what they had to do there due to government mandate. What a drain on overall productivity just to appease Quebec. And now it's happening here without any mandate. Do they have signs in two languages everywhere in New Jersey yet?
There's lots of stuff in Spanish, like ATMs and that sort of thing. I just don't think it's a big deal. If someday there are more Spanish-speaking people that English-speaking in the US, then maybe the predominant language will become Spanish. Then the English speakers will have to learn Spanish. C'est la vie.
ReplyDeleteHmmm, I just don't understand how overhauling the pyramid scheme that is Social Security could be completely unnecessary.
ReplyDeleteUnnecessary in the "if we don't do something now, Social Security will be bankrupt in 30 years" sense.