January 31, 2008
The Debate Last Night (John Feehery)
The Republican debate last night proved the adage that all politics is personal. And you can tell that Mitt Romney and John McCain hold each other in personally low regard.
The other candidates share McCain’s view of Romney. Mike Huckabee clearly can’t stand him. Giuliani couldn’t endorse McCain fast enough. Thompson seemed to relish taking votes away from him in South Carolina.
Romney has been the attack dog in this pack. He launched tough ads against each one of the opponents when they were the leaders. He slashed at Giuliani when he looked like he was going to run away with it. He lunged at Huckabee in Iowa. He tried to destroy McCain in New Hampshire and Michigan. He smacked Thompson in South Carolina. But his instinct to go first for the jugular has enraged his fellow competitors. And now they want payback.
The most uncomfortable moment in the debate was when McCain kept quoting Romney as saying “we don’t want them to wait in the weeds,” a comment that seemed to confirm Romney’s opposition to timetables in Iraq. Anderson Cooper bailed McCain out by quoting Romney’s statement that actually used the word “timetables.” And then Romney complained about McCain’s tactic of making this charge right before the Florida primary, making Romney look like a whiner, especially after all the negative commercials he has run against all of his opponents.
The whole exchange reminded me of two drunk guys in a bar who get into a heated debate on a stupid topic, like who is the best quarterback in the NFL. It made both of them look silly.
Mike Huckabee did the best of the bunch, when given the opportunity. He didn’t immediately claim that Ronald Reagan would endorse him, making him look both humble and, well, right, unlike Romney, who, when asked the same question, looked like the brown-nosing kid who always raises his hand first. Huckabee is clever with language, and he can keep driving the same message without saying exactly the same thing, a useful trait in a politician.
McCain has got to stop using the line that he is someone who led out of patriotism, not out of profit. As a small-business owner, I actually like profits, and think that people who create jobs and businesses are every bit as patriotic as anybody else in this country.
I am not sure whom Ronald Reagan would support in this election. I think he would like Huckabee’s humor, McCain’s steadfastness, Romney’s business sense and even Ron Paul’s distrust of our monetary system. But the question today is not whom Ronald Reagan would support. The better question is which one of these candidates will beat Hillary Clinton.
Permalink TrackBack
Email This Post
Share this post
What's This 11 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
You're assuming, of course, that Hillary gets the nomination. Mitt Romney is a good person who missed some great opportunities to slam McCain last night. He needs to get that killer instinct.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — January 31, 2008 @ 11:46 am
I'll give you an example. When McCain used erroneous information on Romney's record, Romney should have followed up his statement by stating, "John McCain is sitting here criticizing my record when I've created over 64,000 jobs. John McCain never has created one job. John McCain criticized my health care system. He has never created one or had to worry about health care. He has government health care. John McCain complains about the fees I passed, yet, didn't even support the Bush tax cuts. He's talking out of both sides of his mouth, in other words, a typical Washington insider."
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — January 31, 2008 @ 12:02 pm
Juan McShamnesty is obfuscating what he will do after "securing the borders FIRST". He refuses to answer the charges that he is unambiguously for amnesty. He changes the subject. He is hiding his true intentions because he know that one of the very few things that can sink his chance now is the truth about what he will do. He changed the subject when asked if he would sign McCain-Kennedy today. Straight talk express? Please.
He didn't know that he needs to "secure the border" whatever the heck that means to him (squirrels trained in martial arts?) before trying to pass the Amnesty in the dark of night. Now he "learned". Do you believe he has learned anything? Has Juan Hernandez, the sleazy "hybrid of two cultures, the first Mexican American to hold a Mexican Cabinet position, heading the presidential Office for Mexicans Abroad" learned anything? He is on McCain's staff yet McCain professes not to know anything or care about his positions.
Here's some characterization of Juan Hernandez's work from an article on him:
" He argues passionately about the need to obtain legal status for all Mexican workers in the U.S., although he shuns the political vocabulary, preferring to stay away from what he calls explosive terms such as guest worker programs.
There are several million Mexican people in the United States that are creating wealth for the United States and Mexico. These are all good people who have gone up there to work, they have found jobs, they are the builders of the country.
These individuals need to be legalized, they need to be able to come home and see their families and not have to cross a dangerous border; they need to be able to complain if the boss is not paying them for the amount of hours that they worked; they need to be able to have living conditions that are proper, with dignity; to have driver's licenses; to use the banks in the United States. They need their dignity, instead of having to live like criminals. "
" Hernández is emphatic. We must not only have a free flow of goods and services, but also start working for a free flow of people.
The border seems to become more and more a limitation the farther away you get from the border. But those who live in El Paso, those who live in Laredo, those who live in Nuevo Laredo, those who live in Ciudad Juárez, know that the border, in many senses, is an imaginary line, he pointed out.
He takes the idea further. The United States, Mexico, and Canada should be seen really as a single economic bloc, not as competitors. But while looking at the big picture, his focus is, again, on the building blocks."
This is not about attacks ads and personal animosity. This is about McCain's intentions to legalize 12 million illegals and let them bring their families here thus creating a permanent Democratic majority. Enough moderates and independents who don't care about the subject and view him as a protector are voting for him. They will live to regret it, as will all of us.
Comment by Igor R. — January 31, 2008 @ 2:01 pm
McCain just plain lied on the topic of why he didn't support Bush's tax cuts as well.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080131/D8UH1CF80.html
He DID lie about Mitt's withdrawal stance. Lying and "tough ads" are not the same thing.
Just your average straight-talking liar, what can I say. The last best hope of the Republican Party, what a guy!
Comment by Igor R. — January 31, 2008 @ 4:58 pm
How many people here are seeing what I am seeing in all the political blog sites on all major news sources since the Rep Debate Jan 30? The press is so blatantly biased for McCain and against Romney yet the blog posters were overwhelmingly impresses with Mitt Romney. It may be time for strong Conservative Republican to open up a School for Journalism and start investing in Media outlets. Mitt Romney came across the best of all last night but not as good as he really is. With all the talk of increasing troop and strengthening military no one seems to suggest where the money will come from. Since McCain can't keep track of his own money we'll need Mitt Romney to manage the funding of America's future. And he will do it wiht class and style and along with his wife Ann and the five sons model moral virtues of family more than preach them. Mitt Romney is all the way around the ONLY Conservative Republican deserving that title. Otherwise, come Nov we will be left with the left - more one party than two. GO MITT GO!!!!
Comment by Mary McCurry — January 31, 2008 @ 6:00 pm
Is it just me, or is the non-endorsement by the NRA of any of the candidates deafening?
I have not heard of an endorsement by them, but it's my understanding that McShame is not a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment.
Does anyone have any info on this?
Comment by Kent — January 31, 2008 @ 11:31 pm
HAHA. They are splintering because McCain doesn't hate enough poor people, environmentalists, and Mexicans. Oh poor Conservatives!
He's your nominee.
Comment by Chris Calbi — February 1, 2008 @ 9:49 am
If McCain would just start talking bad about the poor and the Mexican he would get some traction with the neocon nuts. Perhaps McCain could advocate on behalf of a new war (somewhere, anywhere) to be fought by other people's children, that too would help mend his ways with his Neocon base.
Oh this is getting just too funny, watching all the warped neocons begin twitching and warning that "the sky is going to fall". HeHeHeHeHeHeHe
Comment by Lester — February 1, 2008 @ 3:39 pm
Chris, disagreeing with someone's position is not "hate". Believing that the illegals (yes they did break the law, you know, call them "migrants" or whatever) should go back to their countries of origin is not "hate". Believing that confiscatory taxation is wrong is not "hating" poor people. Having strong doubts about "Global Warming" is not "hating" environmentalist. If you chose to portray those who disagree as "haters" it's just a tactic, and a hollow one at that.
Comment by Igor R. — February 1, 2008 @ 4:08 pm
Wait till Mike wins Texas then all these pundits will be wrong. Those Florida Yankee can't tell me how to vote!
Comment by glen sampson — February 1, 2008 @ 5:36 pm
Glen, what will Mike winning Texas accomplish?
Comment by Igor R. — February 4, 2008 @ 4:13 pm