|
|
May 25, 2013
|
|
Ten Bodies, but Not Much of a PulsePosted on May 8, 2007WASHINGTON—The announced Republican candidates for president did nothing in their first debate to discourage the unannounced Republican candidates—Fred Thompson, Newt Gingrich, maybe Chuck Hagel—from wading in. The water doesn’t look very deep. Lined up on stage at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library last Thursday, each of the 10 presidential hopefuls struggled to distinguish himself from the crowd. Even if you knew Tommy Thompson from Jim Gilmore from Mike Huckabee, it was hard to keep them straight. “Diverse” certainly wasn’t a word that came to mind when you looked at the field. I admit that my first thought was “country club.” Of the three front-runners, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney had the best evening, in my estimation. Looking back at my notes, I find that he didn’t actually say much—he promised “leadership,” he admired Reagan’s sunny optimism, he labeled House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Hillary Clinton as “the Gang of Three.” But he looked great. The luck of the draw placed Romney right next to host Chris Matthews, which meant he got to go first on the round-robin questions; he took advantage, filibustering capably. And Romney has the best hair, by far, of any of the Republican candidates. It’s John Edwards-level hair. Someone should check how much he pays for his haircuts. Romney also came prepared with an explanation of how he switched from pro-choice to pro-life on abortion. His Road-to-Damascus moment came two years ago, he explained. As governor, he had to develop a position on human cloning; his research into the implications of bioengineering led him to conclude that abortion was wrong. Advertisement But that makes no sense. If abortion is such a horrible practice, why let any state allow it? Giuliani’s worst moment came when he was asked what he would think if Roe v. Wade were overturned. “It would be OK,” Giuliani said. Most people would consider the demise of Roe v. Wade either a catastrophic infringement of women’s sovereignty over their own bodies, or an end to the practice of mass murder. Few would be so indifferent as to shrug and say “OK.” On abortion, the tough-talking Giuliani seemed incongruously meek. There was no meekness, though, from John “Gates of Hell” McCain—that’s how far he said he’d pursue Osama bin Laden. All the major candidates displayed some degree of hawkishness, but McCain has hitched his wagon to President Bush’s troop “surge” and so he went out of his way to come off as an uber-hawk. The war in Iraq was “terribly mismanaged,” McCain said, but now it’s “on the right track.” When House Democrats celebrated the passage of an Iraq spending bill with timetables for U.S. withdrawal, McCain said, “What were they cheering? Surrender? Defeat?” Given the unpopularity of the war—and the unpopularity of its author, the incumbent Republican president—I’m not sure the usual Republican technique of portraying the Democrats as weak on security is such a promising strategy this time. But aside from Rep. Ron Paul, who doesn’t like foreign entanglements, all the Republican candidates followed the playbook and portrayed themselves as from Mars and the Democrats as from Venus. No one seemed to have a better idea. Try as each man might to cloak himself in Reagan’s mantle, it didn’t seem to fit. As candidates, they all seemed to have some growing to do.
Last week, I reported that President Bush had given himself a new nickname—“the Commander Guy.” That was a direct quote from the official White House transcript of Bush’s remarks to the Associated General Contractors of America. On Friday, White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino told reporters that she had asked the transcribers to check the quote again, and that Bush actually said he was “a commander guy,” meaning he believes that commanders rather than politicians should make military decisions. “We will send out a correction of that transcript so that the record is clear,” Perino said. So, alas, no new handle. George W. Bush shall remain the Decider. Eugene Robinson’s e-mail address is eugenerobinson(at symbol)washpost.com. © 2007, Washington Post Writers Group New and Improved CommentsIf you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy. |
By Stephen, May 9, 2007 at 7:35 am Link to this comment
Are you kidding me? it would seem that you as well as the rest of the mainstream media are going to try and force feed us the big 3 (Mitt,Rudy McCain) tsk-tsk-tsk. If you cannot see Dr. Paul’s message for what it is then you are either part of the corporate controlled media machine or you are incompetent in your duties as an annalist either way this does not bode well for your credibility.
Report thisRon Paul is a true American with impeccable credentials and is probably the most respected statesmen this century! Ron Paul, unlike the other candidates on both sides, did not seek this presidential run for his own personal gains. He was begged to run, by Americans who wish to return this country to prominence in the eyes of the global community. We have fallen into very desperate times and his leadership and integrity is what is needed in a world of otherwise greedy politicians who seek personal gain by living off the taxpayers dime! His ability to work with both sides of the aisle is unmatched. He accomplishes this simply with his voting record, “the proof is in the pudding” so to speak. He votes on the issues with his conscience and not with by-partisan hackery and preordained positions from his party. You sir, like the many political pundits cannot regurgitate the same rhetoric forever and expect to retain readership. We need people like you to provide us with truthful content or our decisions will be based upon inaccuracy. The mainstream media ratings and advertising dollar whores are destroying this country from the inside and must come to a screeching halt! WE NEED HONEST NEWS, PLAIN AND SIMPLE, this way we may formulate our opinions based upon that truth which will result in one of our most sacred duties as patriotic Americans and that is to remain informed.
By DennisD, May 8, 2007 at 8:57 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Obviously the wax museum has some exhibits on loan again.
Report thisBy PatrickHenry, May 8, 2007 at 5:20 pm Link to this comment
Ron Paul had the best evening. One only has to read his position on issues to know that he has more cohesive thinking than the country currently has.
I would like to see him run against Kucinich and Gravel.
I would be content with the winner.
Report thisBy Dan Givens, May 8, 2007 at 4:02 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I have to agree with Dru. Ron Paul is not a Republican; I think Libertarian probably describes him very well.
Without a doubt, he won the debate.
Vote Libertarian for a positive change in this country!
Report thisBy Dale Headley, May 8, 2007 at 10:19 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Thompson, Hagel, and Gingrich: just what we needed - three more white men to lead the “big tent” party.
Report thisBy Dru, May 8, 2007 at 8:28 am Link to this comment
Ron Paul won the debate hands down! All the polls show it, but the establishment media and yourself are loathe to report it.
After several days of voting, the online MSNBC poll has Ron Paul leading in every single positive category, proving that the vast majority think he won the debate. In an ABC News poll, well over 7,000 voted for the Congressman with Giuliani and Romney receiving a paltry 100 votes each. In a CSPAN poll, 69% voted for Ron Paul, with his nearest contender garnering just 9% of the vote.
If you are sick of this administration and truly want some change in Washington, then Paul is the only answer. It’s sad that you even failed to mention him when he is against the war and has been from the start. He may be running under the term “Republican”, but he is far from it.
Report thisBy Verne Arnold, May 8, 2007 at 6:41 am Link to this comment
Yes…Lemmings go thru a cycle where they blindly run off a cliff.
Is it possible….Nah!
Report thisBy THOMAS BILLIS, May 8, 2007 at 4:43 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I can see why when they do polls the republicans have a high number who are not satisfied with the choices for President.I know that in the primaries only the fanatics vote but if you pander only to the fanatics you will get 30% in the general.For a liberal like myself it does my heart good to see these 10 guys debate because everytime they pander to Falwell they give themselves less and less of a chance to get elected in the general.It is classic catch 22 to win the primaries means you cannot get elected in the general.After the first republican debate they did a poll and even the third guy Edwards wins every matchup with a republican frontrunner.George Bush is leading the republicans over a cliff and they are saying no problem can I bring my Reagan doll with me.
Report this