Election Central Debate Roundup
Here are some highlights from today's Republican debate on economic issues:
• With this being the first debate featuring Fred Thompson, Maria Bartiromo decided to throw Thompson the first pitch of the event, asking why so many Americans feel pessimistic about the economy. He said that he did not feel pessimistic about the economy, with continuous economic growth, low inflation and other good fundamentals — but is worried about the long-term projections thanks to high government deficits and mandatory entitlement spending.
• Bartiromo very quickly shot back by rephrasing and re-asking her question about the average American's angst, as if to say that Thompson didn't answer it the first time. He then responded: "Well, I think there are pockets in the economy certainly that are having difficulty. I think there's certainly those in Michigan that are having difficulty. I think you always find that in a vibrant, dynamic economy." He then dubbed the overall economic success "the greatest story never told."
• After that initial flap, Thompson didn't do that bad a job — perhaps benefitting from low expectation as a result of his underwhelming performance on the trail these last few weeks.
• It didn't take Rudy Giuliani long to use a falsehood against Hillary Clinton: "The leading Democratic candidate once said that the unfettered free market is the most destructive force in modern America. I mean, just get an idea of where that philosophy comes from." In fact, as Media Matters has laid out, Hillary was using a quote by another author to say that the free market is most disruptive force in modern America, at once producing innovation but also causing upheaval in people's lives — a very, very different thing.
• Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney got into a good fight about Rudy's opposition to the 1990's Line-Item Veto Act, with Romney insisting that you need to be for the line-item veto in order to be a true fiscal conservative. "The line-item veto is unconstitutional," Rudy finally shot back. "You don't get to believe about it, the Supreme Court has ruled on it, so you can bang your head up against a stone wall all you want. He endorsed a constitutional amendment on the issue, and also turned it to his advantage with a Republican audience — by saying how he took President Bill Clinton to court and beat him.
• Ron Paul was asked whether he would commit to supporting the eventual Republican nominee. "Not right now I don't — not unless they're willing to end the war and bring our troops home, and not unless they're willing to look at the excessive spending." He then went on to give all the other reasons he will in all likelihood not be supporting the Republican nominee for president, saying the GOP has lost credibility due to big spending, trampling on civil liberties, and adopting an interventionist foreign policy that used to be the domain of the Democrats.
• Tom Tancredo didn't commit to supporting the nominee, either: "You know, I've said I don't know how many times that I am absolutely tired, sick and tired, of being forced to go to the polls and say I'm going to make this choice between the lesser of two evils." Hmm, if Rudy ends up being the nominee, could Tancredo be the Dobson religious right candidate?
• John McCain nobly stuck to his position against ethanol subsidies, which can't be helping him in Iowa. "By the way, I have a glass of ethanol every morning before breakfast. I still don't support the subsidies and I don't think we need them. And I think we ought to have sugar-cane based ethanol in this country, and I don't think subsidies are the answer."
• Thompson took issue with the idea of looking at tax cuts as costing the government money. "I don't buy the concept that any reduction in taxes is lost revenue to the government," he said. "The taxpayers haven't lost it, it's in their pocket — they know exactly where to find it. We shouldn't confuse the wealth of government with the wealth of nations. Just because the money is sent to Washington doesn't mean the people are any richer — in fact, just the opposite is the case."
• In response to a question about whether the president needs Congressional authorization to strike against targets in Iran, Ron Paul was flabbergasted at the other candidates' equivocations. "Why don't we just open up the Constitution and read it? You're not allowed to go war without a declaration of war! Now as far as fleeting enemies go: Yes, if there's an imminent attack on us — we've never had that happen in 220 years. The thought that the Iranians could pose an imminent attack on the United States is preposterous, there's no way. This is just war propaganda."
• John McCain bemoaned the spirit of protectionism he heard coming from Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo. "My dear beloved Ronald Reagan," he said. "All this bashing of free trade, he must be spinning in his grave."
• At a certain point everyone laughed at the way Tom Tancredo related every last issue to illegal immigration. "The creative conflict that occurs between unions and management is usually a good thing," he said. "When unions I think get off track is when they start to influence public policy especially with regard to — need I say it — illegal immigration." Tancredo himself was laughing as he said it.
• Towards the end, Mitt Romney brought out a joke he had clearly rehearsed and for which he was waiting all night to find an opportunity: "This is a lot like Law & Order, Senator — it has a huge cast, the series seems to go on forever, and Fred Thompson shows up at the end."
Comments (21)
Daniel wrote on October 9, 2007 10:20 PM:Strange that there was no mention of religious issues when the Religious Right is putting increased pressure on the party. Today, new statements by Dobson suggest he is 100% serious about the third-party bid.
skeptic wrote on October 9, 2007 10:55 PM:Ron Paul is the only one who made sense. He is being savaged by all the reich wing bloggers. Too bad he has ruled out an independent bid. He's been down that road before and the deck is really stacked against independents.
Michael wrote on October 10, 2007 8:10 AM:I really like Ron Paul. It's a shame he doesn't have a chance. Does anybody have a count on the 9/11 references by Mr. 9/11? It would be funny if one time during these boring uninformative debates they would put a counter on the screen showing how many times he says 9/11. I bet he breaks 1000.
demwinger wrote on October 10, 2007 8:55 AM:the debate was on CNBC and was financially based so there wasn't too many mentions on real hardcore issues like god, gays, guns, and immigration.
i do find it funny the republicans are taking the dem position of free but fair trade.
also Fred Thompson seemed like another Bush but bigger. dumb as rocks.. Matthews asked him to tell him about the Prime Minister of Canada and Thompson could only say his last name "harper" and couldn't say anything else about him like what his policies were etc.
Ron Paul seemed to be trying to conduct a class than a debate... basically giving a constitution course on every issue and showing how the rest of the field doesn't follow the constitution. they were talking while he talked, showing no respect for him. he is getting more money and traction in the polls than Hunter, Tancredo and Brownback yet still isn't getting respect. he could be a darkhorse cause those Paul supporters are hardcore. he might get 4th place in Iowa and then do well in NH with independents then he would change his tune about 3rd party.
demwinger wrote on October 10, 2007 8:57 AM:the debate was on CNBC and was financially based so there wasn't too many mentions on real hardcore issues like god, gays, guns, and immigration.
i do find it funny the republicans are taking the dem position of free but fair trade.
also Fred Thompson seemed like another Bush but bigger. dumb as rocks.. Matthews asked him to tell him about the Prime Minister of Canada and Thompson could only say his last name "harper" and couldn't say anything else about him like what his policies were etc.
Ron Paul seemed to be trying to conduct a class than a debate... basically giving a constitution course on every issue and showing how the rest of the field doesn't follow the constitution. they were talking while he talked, showing no respect for him. he is getting more money and traction in the polls than Hunter, Tancredo and Brownback yet still isn't getting respect. he could be a darkhorse cause those Paul supporters are hardcore. he might get 4th place in Iowa and then do well in NH with independents then he would change his tune about 3rd party.
Tom Deacon wrote on October 10, 2007 9:08 AM:Although it would seem that the Republicans are rearranging the deck chairs on their ship, Titanic, it would seem helpful to know which of the two "front-runners" were correct about Mitt Romney's taxes. Giuliani says Romney raised taxes by 11%. Romney says he lowered taxes during his tenure as governor.
Which of these guys is right?
demwinger wrote on October 10, 2007 9:16 AM:Romney was facing a state legislature that was like 20 to 1 dem.. so they could override whatever they wanted. so the governor claims he did, he really didn't. his legislature ran the show.
same with Guliani, it was all dems in NYC running the city
sa wrote on October 10, 2007 9:30 AM:One question asked of everyone seemed to be along the lines of: why should the people believe the Republican party is capable to being conservative when they have so many issues related to overspending and moral corruption. I believe no one responded to the "moral corruption" part and kept talking about how they will spend less.
The declarations and demands that we need to be 'optimistic' about the economy, the war, and every thing else, struck me as insulting. Instead of presenting optimism and hope through example and speech. Both Guiliani and Romney demanded that we feel optimistic, which is to say they indirectly are telling us our despair is illegitimate and unfounded. Jimmy Carter did a similar thing leading up the 80 election - and we now how that went.
Where was Alan Keyes yesterday at the debate?
Ruth wrote on October 10, 2007 9:58 AM:Where was Alan Keyes yesterday at the debate?
Steve wrote on October 10, 2007 10:17 AM:I thought Giuliani made some sense. He made Romney look bad on the line item veto thing. I'm beginning to see why he's leading in the Repub polls. Even though he is quirky and has some very un-conservative views he is still far better than the rest of the buffoons on stage. With the possible excepting of Huckabee who I still think is the best GOP candidate up there.
As far as the second tier goes, I thought Gravel was bad on the Dems side but he doesn't hold a candle to Tancredo, Hunter or Brownback. Talking about the three horsemen of the apocalypse, these three are nuttier than a fruitcake.
I watched the Republican Debate Tuesday night being held in Michigan. I came away with the notion that there is a divided Republican Party. One group that follows suit with the current administration’s beliefs, “Tell the American people the truth -- only if courts force you to do so.” The other group are few and far between, but stand out in a large crowd.
I’ll start with Ron Paul. He’s making the Party and Americans remember there is still a matter of the Constitution to consider. Congress shall declare war, not one man/woman.
After that comes John McCain. He’s a little late in finding his ‘Straight Talk base”, but what he said, is what matters. He pointed out that Americans no longer trust government because of Katrina, the Iraq war and Republican spending. He pointed out that since Republicans gained control of Congress in 1994, that it wasn’t Democrats or the government that got lost, it was the Republican Party. They are the ones that lost control of spending, “Republicans were changed by government”.
The saddest part about McCain’s new understanding is, he’s not listening to his own words. He continues to believe the way to go with the war in Iraq is the path the President Bush has taken us.
READ MORE....Coonsey's View
http://www.freewebs.com/coonsey/
Eric,
You need to read what Greg Sargent writes about the bogusness of low MSM expectations for Thompson.
The guy is a buffoon, and he performed at buffoon level. He struggled to remember the word "recession" at the beginning and instead had to substitute "economic downturn" after a pause while he grasped for words.
Rudy is partially right about the line item veto -- it's unconstitutional. He took it to court and won, but it wasn't really a victory just over Bill Clinton -- the GOP in Congress was strongly in favor of the line item veto as well.
foggylady wrote on October 10, 2007 11:52 AM:Yay for Ron Paul. Good idea for him to be IN the debate r to show up the Repub. non-thinking. Good spoiler move.
He and Kunich are the only folks who make any
sense, and neither has a chance.
Says a lot about the voters, doesn't it?
Voting as an Independent is the only real choice left.
Rudy needs to reread Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. The words "exigent circumstances" aren't in there. What it says is that Congress shall have the power to declare war. As for Mitt, maybe his lawyers can explain this to him. Ron Paul may be a crazy libertarian loon, but he was the only one on the platform to get this question right.
Don Quixote wrote on October 10, 2007 12:38 PM:How many times is the dim rightwinger going to post his message? Once is too much for an intelligent comment.
eric wrote on October 10, 2007 12:40 PM:McCain: "By the way, I have a glass of ethanol every morning before breakfast."
Huh? He is saying that he drinks for breakfast? What is he trying to say here?
illlich wrote on October 10, 2007 1:20 PM:The GOP harping on about "tax cuts" again. . . .
So Brownback thinks we are "taxed to the max"-- I guess Bush's various tax cuts don't count for anything? Is this the plan, to just keep giving tax cuts every election, until there is no more tax revenue? After Bush's last tax cut I heard Sean Hannity going off on how he was paying too much in taxes. . .WHAT will it take for them to be satisfied with taxes? AND how exactly does one balance the budget with lower and lower taxes every election season?
Brian wrote on October 10, 2007 2:17 PM:Did anyone else notice how Maria Bartiromo seemed to have an infatuation with Rudy?
The MSM plays too large a role in helping promote and select the candidates they want most (Rudy vs. Hillary). Yes, they may be frontrunners - but no vote has been cast yet and their intense focus on the frontrunners only lifts them higher, causing the public to not reflect on the other candidates, like Obama. Hillary's name was brought up, I was told, about 13 times; Obama once.
Poor, poor Obama. He is just so marginalized by the press. Its amazing that anyone even knows who he is. Not! What is actually amazing is that he has a status any higher than Richardson, which is only because the press has been fawning all over him since day 1. If he hadn't been followed around like a show horse, he'd be stuck at 5%, too.
