« Gilmore doesn't add Fred Thompson to Rudy McRomney..Yet | Main | Be With Fred »

The Republican Debate: Open Borders Isn't A Statement About The Condition Of A Bookstore

05 Jun 2007 09:00 pm

Debates are "won" and "lost" on moments -- what professional wrestling writers call "spots."
There were no real moments of Frisson, except for perhaps the several occasions when God sent lightning to keep Rudy Giuliani from answering a question about the bishop of Rhode Island's criticism of his view on abortion. (You had to be there).

Which means that, all other things being equal, Gov. Mike Huckabee did the best for himself on this mellow night.

Asked a Blitzerianly blunt question about evolution, he responded with a pastor's passion and humor and even John McCain, who clearly does believe in evolution, was moved.

Three debates, three worthy performances for Huckabee. Unfortunately, none of these debates have been widely broadcast in Iowa, and Huckabee's organization seems uncapable, as of yet, of harnessing his hard work during the debates. It's also true that the media refuses to give Huckabee the respect he might deserve, but it's an ontological question: which comes first: media coverage or public support? Maybe some of the Fred T. abstainer conservatives will give Huckabee a second (third? fourth?) look?

McCain's easy command on national security issues drew the evening's first applause when he criticized Hillary Clinton for calling Iraq "Bush's war." His immigration straight talk was clearly unpopular with the audience, but he got his points across. His answer to a NHer's question about ending the war in Iraq was moving, and the CNN cutaway showed that the questioner was moved. A very good night for him, too. At times, he was noticeably in a league of his own.

Giuliani linked Iraq to the broader war on terror and kept accusing Democrats of burying their heads in the sand. To John Edwards he said "This war is not a bumper sticker. This war is a real war." Giuliani called the immigration bill a "mess" and was steadfast -- steadfast in his refusal to propose a comprehensive solution. At least he stayed close to the question, though. In fact, if you put abortion aside, of the three leading Republican candidates, Giuliani placed himself squarely in the center of the Republican coalition in New Hampshire.

Mitt Romney did not answer the night's low-blog question, about his Spanish language campaign website and campaign ads. Did not even come close to an answer. "I am not anti-immigrant," he began, and he went off the rails from there. McCain answered the question for him, and earned loud applause: the contributions of Hispanics, he said, ought to be valued, and they should never feel unwelcome. This will no doubt anger elite conservatives who don't like to be called nativist and give cheer to moderate Republicans, indepedents, and the press.

The most fortuitious event of the night was the random drawing that arrayed Romney, Giuliani and McCain next to each other on the stage, giving us a wonderful opportunity to examine the body language of, say, Mitt Romney when John McCain was talking. The much-anticipated clash between McCain and Romney on immigration came 28 minutes in, although it was Giuliani, showing he was up to snuff on the details of the legislaiton, who came away with the applause lines.

You'd never know that Giuliani, as mayor of NYC, was adamant that he didn't have to enforce immigraton laws.

Through McCain's answer on immigration -- a Full McCain classic with phrases like "come together" and "Democrat and Republican" -- Romney smirked, as if he were enjoying watching a slow motion train wreck. But he seemed chagrined that Giuliani, not him, was given the chance to rebut.

Giuliani invented a new way of refusing to answer questions by saying that in times of war, certain issues were trivial, like amending the law to allow gays in the military. Fine -- but what does Giuliani personally think about _gays_ in_the_military?

Duncan Hunter, apparently, was the only candidate to read the 2002 NIE.

Brownback promised to sketch out a Biden-esque Iraq plan tomorrow.

Tancredo -- vowed to "go after any Republican" who votes in favor of the immigration legislation.

Tommy Thompson yelled all night.

Comments (4)

Frisson, perhaps?

The above is pretty sad, but let's dive right in.

First, McCain's "immigration straight talk" was actually sleazy demagoguery: ils sont beaucoup de noms francais sur le Vietnam Memorial, but no one who cares about the U.S. wants to establish a Quebec ici, durak.

And, the idea that McCain's sleaze would anger "elite conservatives" is completely reversed: it's the "elite conservatives" who are the ones calling the base names. Establishing a de facto bilingual nation is not in any way a moderate idea.

As for the Huckster (I'm refering to Huckabee, not the six other hucksters up there), he's not only a strong supporter of illegal immigration, he manages to be sanctimonious at the same time. He's also got a link to Tyson's and LULAC; the national treasurer of the latter organization recently stated "we didn't cross the border, the border crossed us." A real journalist would look into that; a real moderator would have used his past ProIllegalImmigration statements to end his political career. Ambinder, well, you can see what he says above.

As for the "comprehensive solution", that assumes - as some, oddly enough, do - that we need such a "comprehensive solution" when simply enforcing our current laws would do wonders. Why haven't those elected officials - aside from Tancredo, Paul, and Hunter, been after Bush for his failure to enforce the laws? Oops, Wolfie didn't ask that.

He also didn't ask about the *$2.5 trillion* estimated net retirement cost for the McCain-Kennedy-Bush bill. I guess he forgot about that.

Matthew Yglesias had an interesting comment on the Republican debate, and on how Marc Ambinder covered it. Matt wrote:

>Matthew Yglesias: [T]he takeaway message... is that Democrats need to realize that in 2008 they'll be... up against... audacious -- almost awe-inspiringly so -- lies, and they need to be prepared.... Rudy Giuliani said:

>>It’s unthinkable that you would leave Saddam Hussein in charge of Iraq and be able to fight the war on terror. And the problem is that we see Iraq in a vacuum. Iraq should not be seen in a vacuum. Iraq is part of the overall terrorist war against the United States.

>Now you might think this would count as a giant gaffe... worse than Gerald Ford... [on] Soviet domination of Poland. ... Giuliani is either totally ignorant... or else breathtakingly dishonest....

>My colleague Jim Fallows has that take -- "Huh???" he responds in a post entitled "What Is Rudy Giuliani Talking About???"

>Unfortunately for Democrats, the way political reporters in practice cover this stuff is much better exemplified by my other colleague Marc Ambinder who merely notes that "Giuliani linked Iraq to the broader war on terror and kept accusing Democrats of burying their heads in the sand."

>I don't like it, but that's the way the game is played. What I'd... like to see... is the politician with enough confidence... to... shoot back... [that] BS like that from Giuliani demonstrates not "toughness" but his unfitness to lead the country...

Note how Matt weasals at the end. That's not "how the game is played." That's "how Marc Ambinder plays the game." Agency. Active voice. Those are important here.

Those are important because Marc Ambinder is a smart and competent and hard working man. He is playing the journamalist because he thinks that there is safety there, while following the Fallows strategy of being a journalist is risky.

I believe that Matt's mission--should he choose to accept it--is to be part of the process to convince Marc Ambinder that it is safer for him to be an honest journalist than for him to be a dishonest journamalist: a hack who puts his thumbs, wrists, and elbows on the scale on the side of Giuliani by refusing to point out the untruth of the matter asserted by Giuliani.

If only Ambinder were more scared of the horde of spearchucking webloggers of the left and of the honest right who might get medieval on his person if fails to do his proper job--then Ambinder would behave and be the journalist he could be.

how come no one has asked Mike Huckabee why he thinks there's something funny about what he said before a crown of LULAC mexicans :

http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2005/06/30/News/323746.html

quote:
"Pretty soon, Southern white guys like me may be in the minority," Huckabee said jokingly as the crowd roared in laughter.


I suspect most white americans, which make up a majority of GOP voters, wouldn't have laughed if they had been in the crowd. Yet it seems almost none of the so-called conservative bloggers or news outlets have made an issue out of him or other GOP candidates like McCain pandering to la raza activists.

A majority of americans are against staying in Iraq forever and a majority of americans are against mass legal or illegal immigration and amnesty for illegals already in the country but the establishment is pushing for a Giuliani VS Clinton, two similar candidates whose main difference between them is the colors they're wearing. If you're against a foreign policy based on lies and against and immigration policy based on lies what choice will you have in that case ? None. That's that the establishment wants and it looks like it's also what the media wants.

Why aren't you guys asking the real questions ? What are you afraid of ?


Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.