GOP debate

Unfortunately I was unable to see the GOP candidates’ forum last night, but Andrew E. saw it and writes:

I caught most of the Republican debate last night on MSNBC and it was the first time I had seen Rep. Tancredo speak and I was thoroughly impressed. It was obvious that every answer he gave was entirely sincere and principled, what a remarkable thing to witness from a politician.

I think the most eye-opening moment for me was when Senator McCain was asked if he would be comfortable with Rep. Tancredo as head of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and McCain replied: “In a word, no.” Then he proceeded to comment further on an earlier question. No elaboration, no explanation as to why. It was crystal clear that McCain has zero respect or tolerance for Tancredo’s position on immigration. The moment was in a word, scary. And it’s not like Tancredo was carrying on like Rep. Ron Paul (an aggressive, blustering old man who though he has many positions with which I agree—abolishing the IRS and the Federal Reserve—his libertarianism clearly limits his worldview and he is absolutely clueless about Islam). Tancredo was always calm, pleasant and respectful of the other candidates and the moderators, even though he was cut off several times. McCain must not become president.

Ben (not Ben W.) writes:

I have heard over and over again how well Tancredo did. I couldn’t come up with that conclusion because the debate was so awful, the questions so absurd, the debate leaders so obnoxious that it was unbearable to watch. The debate was not about the future of America, it was about men like Chris Matthews and his personal beefs with America.

You didn’t miss anything. Just imagine a Chris Mathews show and that sums up the debate.

LA writes:

Here’s some more good news. Libertarian columnist Ryan Sager, an all-out Giuliani champion whose more recent worries about his candidate I’ve noted previously (“Rudy and Judi make even a libertarian go ‘ick’,” VFR, April 3), says about the debate:

At this point, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that the Giuliani campaign is in a full meltdown.

“Full meltdown” is hyperbolic, sloppy writing. If the campaign were in full meltdown, it would be irretreivably destroyed, which is evidently not the case. Sager veers from one extreme to another, from his earlier inordinate confidence in Giuliani to his present despair about him.

Sager also says that Romney was the big winner of the night.

A reader sends this from a description of high points of the debate at the New York Sun website

8:22: With Ahnold in the audience, Matthews asks whether we should amend the Constitution to allow people not born here to run for office. Romney goes first. He says with Ahnold there, he’d have to think about it. But he’s inclined to say no. Brownback’s a no. Gilmore’s a no. Huckabee is a yes (“After I’ve served eight years.”—good line). Hunter is a no. Thompson is a no. McCain: “It depends on whether he endorses me or not.” Paul is a no. Giuliani is a yes.

Andrew E. replies:

Ben is absolutely correct that Chris Matthews loves to listen to himself talk and the debate suffered for it, this was obvious. The debate was also weak because it was much too short. I’m not saying that I now think Rep. Tancredo will win the presidency because of this performance, I was stating simply that I had never seen him speak before and it was a joy to watch a politician speak so honestly and forthrightly to the public. It’s true that Tancredo stammers slightly before answering each question but I think part of that is because each question is so loaded with liberal bias that he has to take a moment to formulate his answer which will bring the issue back to the true center, into its proper context without the assumed liberalism, before stating his position so that it can be understood properly. A problem for all true conservatives. :)

I agree with the other commenters, Giuliani did poorly, mostly because he hasn’t found a good way to answer the abortion question and probably because he can’t. I wish someone would challenge him directly on his treatment of his last wife and their children, he put that in the public domain, it’s fair game and it’s significant.

Also, Romney did very well. The guy is good, that is a good politician. He’s very slick and very smooth but not in a creepy way, not yet at least.

Charles T. writes:

I did not get to see the debate. However, I did get to hear Tancredo on Bill O’Reilly’s radio show this week. Oreilly tried several times to get Tancredo to agree with him that illegals should be given a period of time to come forward, get registered as guest workers, and then pursue a path to citizenship. Tancredo would not budge and told O’Reilly that this would reward those who have broken our laws with citizenship and that is not appropriate. O’Reilly tried this twice on the segment. Tancredo also noted that some of O’reilly’s other proposals on immigration were already on the books and that we needed enforcement versus reform

Tancredo is the man.

Bob Vandervoort writes that MSNBC has announced it is is going to air the GOP debate again on Saturday, May 5, at 2 p.m., and again on Sunday at 11 a.m. He adds:

I think it’s worth looking at the post debate coverage to see what Tancredo had to say (he wasn’t allowed to finish a thought by the very rude Chris Matthews).

Also, I thought with the exception of one question on amnesty, they didn’t dwell very much on immigration. Tancredo could have been a bit feistier, I thought. Hopefully he’ll do better in the next debates.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 04, 2007 10:29 AM | Send