OPINION & EDITORIAL
Thompson’s debut far from stunning
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Ryan Masse:
- Rockin' around the what? (November 29, 2007)
- A downside to diversity, an upside to change (November 16, 2007)
- High schoolers can handle ads (November 8, 2007)
- Health providers must list prices (November 1, 2007)
- Employee policies in need of upgrade (October 25, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Minority issues crucial for GOP candidates (October 2, 2007)
- GOP overlooks minority voters (October 11, 2007)
- Colbert: Closest thing to real conservative in '08 (October 18, 2007)
- Thompson's mixed legacy (December 6, 2004)
- Race does, should, and will continue to matter! (December 5, 2001)
by Ryan Masse
Thursday, October 11, 2007
The nine Republican candidates for president debated for the 923rd time in 2007 Tuesday night, discussing economic issues in Michigan. Notably, this debate featured former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Law and Order, who made his much-anticipated debut after months of general campaign bumbling, stumbling and hesitation. With Mr. Thompson's entry into the race, now seems as good a time as any to size up the GOP field, and Tuesday's debate provides a suitable lens through which to make the assessment. So, here are the winners, losers and "mehs" from Tuesday night.
Winners:
Rudy Giuliani: We're getting to a point in the campaign where you can easily discern a party's frontrunner by paying attention to how many times he or she mentions the other party's frontrunner(s) in a debate. Face it, if Duncan Hunter started every answer with "Hillary Clinton this and Hillary Clinton that," it'd seem a little presumptuous. Rudy knows he's the frontrunner, though, so he's free to lace his debate responses with allusions to a Hillary-led America. And that he did.
As could be predicted, the most interesting points in the debate featured discussion between Mr. Giuliani and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. In addition to taxes and spending, the two quarreled over the use of a presidential line-item veto as a way to control spending. Mr. Romney said he would support it at the federal level. Mr. Giuliani retorted that it was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1998. It seems a little unclear what Mr. Giuliani's stance on the line-item veto is on the merits — he claims to like it, though he led the effort to invalidate it in the ’90s — but at least he acknowledges that it would probably take a constitutional amendment to bring it back at the federal level.
Mitt Romney: It seems almost inconceivable that Mr. Romney won't finish in the top two, when all is said and done in the nomination process.
Losers:
Social security reform: In a debate centering on economic issues, social security sure didn't get much play. Everyone spoke about it in passing, but nobody seemed willing to devote any considerable time to the subject. That's a pretty good indication of where the topic ranks in this election. President Bush made a fairly big deal about reform in the 2004 election, but his efforts to act on it fell apart rapidly in 2005. The Democrats have a "stay the course" stance on Social Security, and while Republicans generally support some level of privatization, it's not a political priority. There's always 2012, I guess.
Jim Gilmore: The former Virginia governor dropped out of the presidential race some time ago and was nowhere to be found at Tuesday's debate. Frankly, he deserved to lose due to his failure to respond to the "Obama Girl" phenomenon with his own "Gilmore Girl." Simply inexcusable. Just thought I'd mention that, and also point out there's more advice like it for any campaign willing to hire me for a lucrative salary.
Mehs:
Ron Paul: Has anybody considered the possibility that Ron Paul is actually a lackey employed by the Giuliani campaign to set the former New York mayor up for good sound bites? Mr. Paul claimed Tuesday that the United States had never been imminently attacked by another country. In an earlier debate, he claimed Sept. 11 resulted from U.S. foreign policy. Both are patently wrong and provided perfect opportunities for Mr. Giuliani to get in good quotes.
If Mr. Paul is his own candidate, I'm conflicted. I want to like him. I should like him. There can't be any doubt that he's completely sincere in everything he says. But he spent an entire debate supposedly about economic matters talking about foreign policy. They're related, to be sure, but one must wonder if Mr. Paul has realized his libertarian economic message doesn't attract much attention, sadly, while his strident anti-war views do.
Fred Thompson: Fred Thompson making his debut at a debate focused on economic matters is kind of like Rafael Nadal facing Roger Federer on a grass court. Mr. Thompson can compete with these guys, but it's not a venue that affords him the best chance to succeed. If the former senator is going to make a serious run at the GOP nomination, it's going to be as a Reagan-esque cultural candidate, winning support of social conservatives. Those issues weren't at play Tuesday. Let's face it, the national security mantle clearly is Mr. Giuliani's to keep. Mr. Romney doesn't specialize in any particular issue area, but he's well-organized and campaigns well. What the Republican field lacks is a strong pro-life candidate, or at least a pro-life candidate who's also a television star. That's Mr. Thompson's M.O.
As for his performance Tuesday, Mr. Thompson appeared a little uncomfortable and stuck to broad policy explanations. Being positioned on stage between Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Romney probably didn't help, especially when the two were quarrelling with each other over who's better at holding the line on taxes and spending. The polls say Mr. Thompson belongs with those two candidates, but he'll need to make marked improvements in his debate performance and campaigning to stick with them.
Mike Huckabee: Another respectable performance from Mr. Huckabee, "hick" name and all. His campaign still has a chance, unlike those of Messrs. Brownback, Hunter and Tancredo, but time is of the essence if the ex-Arkansas governor is to make a serious move.
Ryan Masse (rmasse@badgerherald.com) is a first-year law student.
Kyle Brotherton (October 11, 2007 @ 3:11am):
It was an interesting debate, to be sure.
Mitt Romney said he'd consult his lawyer before starting a war.
Giuliani suggested that the US gov had prior knowledge of 9/11, and could have prevented it by bombing Pakistan.
The big winners: Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo. Ron Paul for being the only candidate with a conservative monetary policy. Tom Tancredo for being the most vocal social conservative of the night.
Gene Gallagher (October 11, 2007 @ 3:23am):
Have you considered maybe they should actual include asking questions to Dr. Paul during the debates? 4.5 minutes given to Paul included set-up questions to to mearly marginalize him. I would think a monkey would be able to see through the "debate" smokescreen.
Anonymous (October 11, 2007 @ 3:41am):
What data do you have to back up your points? "Mr. Paul claimed Tuesday that the United States had never been imminently attacked by another country. In an earlier debate, he claimed Sept. 11 resulted from U.S. foreign policy. Both are patently wrong....."
If I recall my 5th grade history class, I believe Hawaii achieved statehood in 1959. 18 years after the Japanese attacked it. 9/11 was not a state sponsored act, most all the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, are you inferring Saudi Arabia attacked us or Afghanistan? Whether they tacitly condoned the actions, it was not state sponsored. Google up 'blowback' for your second assertion...you might come to the realization that both Mr. Paul's statements were patently correct.
Anonymous (October 11, 2007 @ 4:05am):
"Ron Paul: Has anybody considered the possibility that Ron Paul is actually a lackey employed by the Giuliani campaign to set the former New York mayor up for good sound bites? Mr. Paul claimed Tuesday that the United States had never been imminently attacked by another country. In an earlier debate, he claimed Sept. 11 resulted from U.S. foreign policy. Both are patently wrong and provided perfect opportunities for Mr. Giuliani to get in good quotes.
If Mr. Paul is his own candidate, I'm conflicted. I want to like him. I should like him. There can't be any doubt that he's completely sincere in everything he says. But he spent an entire debate supposedly about economic matters talking about foreign policy."
Please tell me that you are a little brighter than this.
You have taken things out of context. 911 was a blind side by 19 thugs, similar to a random drive-by shooting. Nobody is denying that it happened, but it was not the same as an "imminent threat" from another country. The question was about Iran. Dr. Paul said that it was absurd to consider Iran, a third world country, with a third world military, and imminent threat to the US. How would they attack us? He's 100% correct. You and Rudy G are conflating situations with foreign countries, and 911.
The hatred towards us from our meddling foreign policy is very much fact, and the CIA backs this up. Ron Paul B-slapped Rudy on his piss-poor knowledge of the 911 Report months ago. This is old news; get yourself up to speed as rehashed ignorance is a drag on us all.
A foreign policy that pours billions of dollars down foreign holes, while the country atrophies, has everything to do with domestic economic matters.
You are patently wrong. Please study up before you write.
Anonymous (October 11, 2007 @ 4:08am):
"In an earlier debate, he claimed Sept. 11 resulted from U.S. foreign policy. Both are patently wrong and provided perfect opportunities for Mr. Giuliani to get in good quotes."
Thank God there are people smarter than you and Guiliani actually running our country. Namely the CIA, Wolfowitz, the 9/11 report committee, etc... You know, actual experts? They agree with Ron Paul's assessment of the situation.
You are simply 'reacting,' not thinking. And Guiliani counts on that for his vote.
Anybody stupid enough to really think 9/11 wasn't DIRECTLY related to our meddling in the Middle East should be kept as far away from the nuclear trigger as possible.
Of course, I bet you don't believe that we created Al Qaeda or armed Saddam, do you? Either open a history book or close your mouth, because you sound just as much an idiot as Guiliani.
Anonymous (October 11, 2007 @ 4:28am):
"Mr. Paul claimed Tuesday that the United States had never been imminently attacked by another country. In an earlier debate, he claimed Sept. 11 resulted from U.S. foreign policy. Both are patently wrong and provided perfect opportunities for Mr. Giuliani to get in good quotes."
Patently wrong, why? Invectives like that need justification. The burden of proof is on the accuser. Now, please allow me to make your job harder.
One is never "imminently attacked" in the past tense. In a rushed, barely-moderated debate, I can see how context might get lost or confused, so I'll add it back in. Expanded, Paul's statement was that there has never been a time when we had sufficient and incontrovertible advance warning of a specific attack, which allowed time for a preemptive strike by immediate Presidential decree but did not allow time for it to be brought before Congress.
In this context, Giuliani's immediate 9/11-flogging amounted to calling Bush out for poorly interpreting prior intelligence! If it had been an "imminent attack" by any definition which matters to Presidential policy, which Giuliani insists here, then by his own platform Bush should have known it was coming and bombed Afghanistan on 9/10. (9/09 would have allowed time to go to Congress.) Bush clearly didn't know, so either it was at no point verifiably "imminent," or Giuliani is calling Bush an idiot and saying he could have done a better job with the available intelligence at the time. Granted, this might not be a bad platform position for him, but it's nothing but the proverbial 20/20 hindsight -- empty rhetorical fluff.
The statement that 9/11 was in no way influenced by U.S. policy is so far beyond rational that I don't even know where to start. Our own CIA coined the term 'blowback' to describe this very real side-effect of our foreign actions. It doesn't mean "it's our fault" or "we deserved it," it's just a statement of motive.
That Giuliani jumps on these statements, ignores their content, and manufactures a barbed quip against a straw man, means only two things: that he is an unprincipled cutthroat who views the Presidency as a glittering prize to be won at all costs, and that he believes his entire constituency to be too stupid to notice.
I plead with you not to prove him right.
Anonymous (October 11, 2007 @ 7:35am):
On the comment about Ron Paul's comment on imminent attacks: the topic being discussed was whether to seek Congressional approval for a strike (pre-emptive/retaliatory doesn't matter). Ron Paul wasn't suggesting that we haven't been imminently attacked, Pearl Harbor is a good example: Roosevelt told Congress what happened and asked for their approval to retaliate. In the situation of 9/11, even Bush, who has deviated from protocol on so many other things, still addressed Congress and asked for authority to begin a "Global War on Terror". Guiliani's theory is that 9/11 caused a situation so urgent that in the hours after the initial attack, when the President was on AirForceOne, and not able to address Congress, there would be such an abundance of accurate information that it would be better for the President to act without Congressional approval, since to do so would prevent us from ever getting another chance to catch Bin Laden.
What happened after 9/11 negates Guiliani's understanding of things. Bush asked for authority and went after the Taliban after first asking that they turn over Bin Laden to us.
Anonymous (October 11, 2007 @ 8:05am):
Mark my words, Huckabee will take Iowa. If you're going to vote for Romney or Giuliani, you might as well vote for Hillary Clinton.
Anonymous (October 11, 2007 @ 9:01am):
You really need to do some research on Ron Paul before making these absurd assertions. I don't expect you to know everything about every candidate but even joking assertions that Dr. Paul is Giuliani's lackey is insulting.
Anonymous (October 11, 2007 @ 9:02am):
when you say :"but one must wonder if Mr. Paul has realized his libertarian economic message doesn't attract much attention"
I guess you love the IRS and paying income tax...
Anonymous (October 11, 2007 @ 9:35am):
A couple comments. Firstly, your article ain't very timely (the debate was Tuesday afternoon), and it shows your laziness. You've clearly "borrowed" a number of opinions already posted on weblogs. Is it that difficult to make your own observations?
Secondly, your point about Paul's "patently wrong" comments is moot. Although it does seem that Paul is inviting Giuliani's 9/11 comebacks, don't you think that Paul is making fair, well-reasoned (although somewhat broad) observations about history and the US's foreign policy? Has the US been "imminently attacked" by another country in 220 years? I would say no, if you don't consider our worldwide military-base entanglements. And Giuliani's comeback?: <<It was kind of organized in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and if we'd have known about it, maybe hitting a target there quickly might have helped prevent it.">> Yeah, right, has anyone even bothered to even read the 9/11 Report? The hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. And hitting targets "quickly" is supposed to accomplish what exactly?
Thirdly, why are you bringing up Jim Gilmore hereat this point? He dropped out 3 months ago? Just to mention a otoise remark about "Gilmore girl"? Wow, that's priceless.
Dale Gregory (October 11, 2007 @ 9:37am):
Ron Paul a lackey? Are you nuts? If you look at what Ron Paul said, he is exactly correct. Has another country came upon our shores and attacked America? No some highjackers from SAUDIA ARABIA did, using AMERICAN jetliners. And we go to war with Iraq? Why hasn't this idiot been impeached? I'm sorry but that's not a country exactly attacking us. Rudy has overplayed 9-11 to the point that it's become sickening to everyone in America, and especially New Yorkers. Who else can get booed (sp?) during a Yankee's game, during God Bless America, just because they show his ugly mug on the screen?..Only Rudy.
He consistently lies about his track record and claims tax cuts that he didn't make or support in the first place. He claims that there were exactly 23 terra plots thwarted on US soil because of us not having our civil liberties any longer. Wow 23 huh? Not even the Bush/Satan administration has a number, but yet Rudy the liar has one? He is completely absurd with his lies, and will not lead this country. If we don't rise up and support Ron Paul we will be lead by Hillary Clinton because there's no way people will support Rudy as a president and leading warmonger in the world.
IS IT IMPORTANT TO ANYONE THAT RUDY'S APPROVAL RATING WAS AT ONLY 37% ON 9/10? HE WAS A HORRIBLE MAYOR ACCORDING TO HIS OWN FIRE DEPARTMENT AND POLICE DEPARTMENTS!
The sad thing about all this is that we knew about both Pearl Harbor and 9/11 before they happened. There were at least 10 countries that came forward and expressed that they had let our leaders know of the plan. What did we do? We ignored them, held "excercises" the same day with the same scenario (later repeated in London) and just let airliners fly into our buildings.
Why? Because now we're safer for it. We can now have our doors kicked in, our ownings pilfered, and not even know about it. When you find out about it, it's 5 years in the tank for letting anyone know about this travesty. Don't you feel safer now? You people need to study up on the facts and realize where our country is heading. I spent 5 years in the Marine Corps, and I joined to DEFEND our country, not protect our overseas oil interest. I now have a 11 year old son that could very easily be sent to Iran/Iraq in the next 7 years. We need to be defending ourselves, not taking over the world and forcefeeding our beliefs to people who aren't interested.
Long story short. Ron Paul is definitely not a punching bag for Rudy. Rudy lies outright and anyone who does some research will see this. Unfortunately 90% of Americans are friggin idiots who either don't care or are so easily puppeted by the mains stream media that they are oblivious to facts. Who cares about our military now being pushed into Iran, who cares about the fact that we no longer have civil liberties! Look Lindsay lohan, Paris Hilton, and Keifer Sutherland just got new DUI's woohoo! Americans need to quit watching so much TV and start living real lives. The sheep need to awaken. I don't want a police state ran by a 9-11 guy. I want a free and independent life without government intrusion, and I want that from a 9-12 guy like Ron Paul!
Rudy will answer for his lies and deceit some day.
Ron Paul for President, he's the only one with balls enough to bring our troops home and let them defend the constitutional rights of Americans, which is their only purpose along with DEFENSE.
Ron Paul 2008!!
Anonymous (October 11, 2007 @ 10:17am):
Ron Paul crazies, wtf is with this "r3VOLution" crap?
stop vandalizing our campus.
and our minds.
Anonymous (October 11, 2007 @ 10:36am):
Ron Paul only gets a few minutes in the whole debate to get some salient points in. If you took some time to listen to his views on the causes/motives of 9/11, you would understand it didn't happen in a vacuum, and that actually understanding your enemy's motives can be a strategic advantage in the future, and Paul does call them our enemies. But Osama knew that if we got drawn into wars in the Middle East, then he could rally Muslims behind his cause and create a bigger movement. There are those that believe that we have no choice but to go and fight them, and there are those that believe that we are playing into our enemies hands and fomenting a terrorist movement. One thing's for sure, the war drums are beating and dissenting voices are being drowned out and are accused of being unpatriotic or pacifistic, a classic Gestapo tactic. Next stop, national ID card... "Papers please..."
Doug Bayless (October 11, 2007 @ 11:13am):
I also am interested to hear your justification and evidence for your claims that Ron Paul is wrong on history and foreign policy. Surely, as a law student you can see the flaws in your assertion. You can decide not to support him, but please do not misinform people about the factual evidence that Ron Paul has the cajones to articulate in the few minutes he is given.
Again and again Ron Paul does his listeners the courtesy of using sound logic and reasoning. When he asserts that the US was not attacked by a foreign country, he explains. Most of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia (which didn't attack us) who apparently were thugs working for a disgruntled former US operative named bin Laden (who took credit) who was spreading his terrorist doctrines in Afghanistan (who as a nation didn't 'officially' attack us but even Paul voted for our logical invasion of that country in order to shut down the camps of those that attacked us and pursue bin Laden . . . remember when that was the objective?)
Now that our foreign policy has been hijacked to invade Iraq (and Iran? and Syria? and ?), the tragedy of 9/11 has been prostituted, and bin Laden continues to run free in a nation that the Bush administration calls an "ally" (Pakistan -- an Islamo-Fascist nation who both militarily overthrew their democratic leader *and* developed functional nukes in the last few years) Ron Paul is the only Republican who is willing to have a logical and reasonable conversation about it imho.
Anonymous (October 11, 2007 @ 11:21am):
Why don't you do some research before write an article. Do some fact checking please. Have some journalistic integrity. It seems that any mail room clerk could spout out a bunch of unfounded lies. This article is an embarrassment. I think it's time to find another career. Next time stick to MLB and please stay away from politics.
Anonymous (October 11, 2007 @ 11:28am):
Don't talk about foreign policy when talking about economics? NEWS FLASH!
Duncan Hunter said that 700 Billion of the 1.2 Trillion dollar budget was allocated to the DoD
Make connections!!!
Anonymous (October 11, 2007 @ 11:39am):
Hey Ryan,
I appreciate your article but you really need to do some fact checking before you print. You made some pretty naive (for lack of a better word) comments about our history and Ron Paul.
<i>Mr. Paul claimed Tuesday that the United States had never been imminently attacked by another country. In an earlier debate, he claimed Sept. 11 resulted from U.S. foreign policy. Both are patently wrong and provided perfect opportunities for Mr. Giuliani to get in good quotes.</i>
First, the United States has never been attacked by a sovereign nation. If you disagree, please provide one fact. Second, 9-11 was a direct result from America's foreign policy. If you don't believe that then please read the 9-11 commission report.
Regarding Giuliani: are you nuts? You think that what he said to Paul made him look good? He looked like the uneducated, 9-11 profiting, looser that he is. When America finds out that New Yorkers hate him, and that he's not even responsible for the tax cuts that happened during his administration, he will go down in flames. Let's not even talk about the fact that he's a cross dressing adulterer.
Ryan, you are a writer. It is your RESPONSIBILITY to have your facts straight before publishing. I'm not sure who at the Herald is responsible for this blatant mistake but you wrote it so you take the blame!
Your article should have read.. "Ron Paul again schooled Giuliani on foreign policy. This was the second time Giuliani made himself look foolish when exchanging words with Ron Paul. I mean, did Giuliani even read the 9-11 commission report? Let's be clear on one thing folks, Ron Paul understand foreign policy and Giuliani would be wise to read those books Ron Paul sent him a few months back."
Anonymous (October 11, 2007 @ 11:51am):
9:35 - Regarding your comments on timeliness.
Are you even aware of how newspapers work? There's this thing called deadline. The debate was Tuesday, but the deadline for opinion content is 6 p.m. Yes, he could have written it in the two hours after the debate, but his column runs Thursdays, not Wednesdays. It's been one day! Cut the guy some slack.
Anonymous (October 11, 2007 @ 12:30pm):
Oh my gosh, if Ron Paul is elected president, I'm going to strap in for the instant hilarity. I want to see him TRY to do half of the hair-brained libertarian platform.
If you're anti-war or pro-legalization, you're not a libertarian, you're a hippy. Get it straight, dirtbags.
Anonymous (October 11, 2007 @ 1:01pm):
I love to read the editorial titles but I though Tommy left after his defeat in Iowa.
- Germain E. Stemme
Anonymous (October 11, 2007 @ 2:00pm):
"Oh my gosh, if Ron Paul is elected president, I'm going to strap in for the instant hilarity. I want to see him TRY to do half of the hair-brained libertarian platform.
If you're anti-war or pro-legalization, you're not a libertarian, you're a hippy. Get it straight, dirtbags."
Wow... uh, you certainly told us?
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
