Wednesday, September 5, 2007

New Hampshire Republican Presidential Candidates Debate Tonight

Don’t Forget To Watch The New Hampshire Republican Presidential Candidates Debate Tonight at 8:00 Central Time, 9:00 Eastern, on FOX News.

Of the candidates still in the competition, only Fred Thompson, who decided to go onto the Tonight Show with Jay Leno tonight and announce his candidacy tomorrow.

I can’t figure out what he was thinking, except that he could only lose some of the shine he has in the media by any direct comparison with the existing candidates. It surely isn’t going to help him in New Hampshire, and I don’t think in Iowa either, where he has first skipped the Straw Poll and now the opportunity to be compared with candidates who have been on the ground in early states for months, while he has no on the ground campaign effort at all, yet.

19 comments:

Stephen R. Maloney said...

I know it's hard to get Americans to read The (London) Economist, even though it's almost in the category of wonderful. It has a devastating article this week on Fred Thompson. It characterizes his numerous speeches as consisting mainly of "conservative cliches interspersed with long pauses." He makes things more difficult for Mike -- he shouldn't, but he does.

On the Sarah Palin front, she had a three-part interview with the Anchorage Daily News (adn.com), and they asked her at one point if big-time elected officials didn't have to cut ethical corners with lobbyists, etc. Here's her wonderful response;


SARAH PALIN: "Right. Well, that's why I think we need more real and normal and hardworking and blue-collar Alaskans to want to run for office and serve in these positions that are making decisions. Again, I will personalize this. I am not from that other world. My dad as a school teacher wasn't a mover and shaker developer making big bucks in the state of Alaska off of property development. My husband [a commercial fisherman and oil field worker] isn't that way. I am not raising my kids to be that way.... If you want to be in public service, it is being willing to serve Alaskans for the right reasons. It is having to have a servant's heart when you come into these positions. It's not to get rich."

To know her is to love her.

We are adding one blog supporter (even a liberal who loves her honesty) per day, and hope to do that right through the end of this year.

steve

Stephen R. Maloney said...

I'm going to do at some point a short piece on the blogs for the various candidates. The best one is the Bloggers for Huckabee. I would put the Bloggers for Palin second right now. The Bloggers for Paul have a good organization. Bloggers for Romeny is downright creepy -- very professional appearance but a robotic version of posting. Giuliani blogging is getting better in a hurry. McCain bloggers? Almost non-existent.
Paul blogs? Lot of energy, but there are some flat-earth proponents there.

Thompson: many blogs listed but few doing much except making excuses for various revelations. A sorry effort at this point.

steve

Lee said...

I was pretty impressed with Huckabee's performance tonight, particularly in his exchange with Ron Paul about maintaining integrity. He got some positive marks from the electronic polling during that exchange. His candidacy is coming along nicely, though he's still not close and doesn't look like he's going to get the numbers he needs to beat Giuliani or Romney. I thought Romney was unimpressive tonight, a lot of rhetoric, not much substance. Of course, I only saw the last half of the debate and the commentary afterward. I guess being governor of a neighboring state does carry a big advantage. In spite of a good performance by Huckabee, and a lackluster one by Romney, Huckabee is still a long way back.

Stephen R. Maloney said...

I wish both you and Lee would go to see what FORMER Huckabee supporter D. Roman had to say about the debate. He praised Romney the Robot and trashed both Huckabee and Giuliani, apparently because they demonstrated insufficient hatred of Mexicans. I wrote him a response which probably will go down the memory hole of comment moderation. I told D. Roman his position was incompatible with Christianity, which it is. From time to time, he professes Roman Catholicism, but I have never seen it in action for one instant. Much of my life is devoted to Sarah Palin's efforts, but D. Roman is coming off my blogroll. Sarah is a real Christian, and I'm sure she'd approve. My best to you, Lee, and Mike Huckabee

Larry Perrault said...

Huckabee and Palin would make a consistent ticket, eh? Some might say that the ticket should look more diverse. But, I'm not going for diversity on morality.

I'm curious to see how Fred's first month goes. For him, he probably did the right thing by staying out: less time for all the gas to seep out of a media-inflated balloon.

I enjoy reading the Huckabee blogs. Obviously, the blogosphere will make a DIFFERENCE, this year. But within ten years from now, I think the Internet will be decisive. This is the year for a Giuliani or Thompson to win on a base of media publicity, because soon I don't think it will fly.

Lee, Huckabee is the only one who has consistently climbed. It's only a question of how much kick he gets from the Iowa caucuses in the states immediately following. At this date, I can't predict him beating Romney in Iowa, but I do predict a lot closer contest than people expect, and a LOT can happen in the next four months. He WILL finish ahead of Giuliani, McCain, and Thompson in Iowa. The bigger question than how quickly Huckabee can catch Romney in Iowa, is whether Giuliani and Thompson can hold their breath through loss in Iowa and New Hampshire and get to Feb. 5. Giuliani might, but I don't see Thompson making it.

If McCain got the wheels back on, he and Huckabee could both beat Giuliani in South Carolina, and Romney too, incidentally. But especially if the media doesn't declare him dead, Giuliani could still be a big force on Feb. 5.

It's possible that it could go into Feb. 5 with a Giuliani still strong in national polls, but teetering, and Huckabee still considerably behind in national polls, but rising. That could make it a real dogfight, with Giuliani strong in California and New York and some other big states, and Huckabee strengthening in Southern and non-coastal Western states. If Romney slogs through SC and FL after doing well in Iowa, NH, & MI if they hold their early date and delegates(it doesn't look like Republicans will punish their move),he obviously could be strong in sdme Western states. I think a President Romney would be a more competent but little more innovative and inspiring place-holder than Bush was. When G.W. Bush was elected in 2000, I said "Leviathan gets a night manager."

And Stephen, I hope the hostile anti-immigration people are more noisy than they are numerous. In any case, neither Tancredo or Hunter will get to Feb. 5 with any momentum, if at all.

D.Roman said...

Wow, that was interesting.

D.Roman said...

I would just like to point out that Stephen Maloney misrepresented and outright lied in his comments about me, my faith and my blog. First of all, Jesus says render onto Caesar what is Caesar's, which is why I believe in following immigration laws. He left no comment on my post. He left a comment on one of my wife's post on Giuliani. My wife is Hispanic, though her family came here legally, and if you look throughout my blog you will notice there are many comments from him, none have ever been deleted or modified.

I also did not attack Huckabee in my post, you can read that for yourself. Unfortunately Mr. Maloney has been going around the Huckabee web trying to stir up trouble between Huckabee supporters for the last month. He is a staunch Giuliani supporter with less than honorable intentions.

When you read my blog for yourself, The Maritime Sentry, you will find I am speaking the truth and remember his comment about me is on my wife's post about Giuliani and not on my debate post as he states. I believe he deliberately placed it on another post so it would appear I deleted it when others looked for it.

D.Roman

Stephen R. Maloney said...

Today on my site: http://camp2008victorya.blogspot.com
NOT "THE NOBLEST ROMAN": PORTRAIT OF A HUCKABEE DEFECTOR

Yesterday, D. Roman of Wisconsin, a person who masqueraded for a few months one of the strongest Mike Huckabee backers (see comments at http://themaritimesentry.blogspot.com defected, apparently to support someone else. If Mother Theresa converted to Lutheranism, the surprise could not have been greater. I believe D. Roman represents the sickness -- moral, intellectual, spiritual, and political -- that infects a small portion of the Republican Party, and I'll have much to say about him and his ilk over the next few days.

With his new-found political independence, Roman spent the post-debate period denouncing Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani. The latter is justifiably an American hero to most people, and the former is on his way to becoming one. Roman is one of moral and ideological sad sacks who believes that disagreeing with a candidate on one or more issues means the subject of his venom must be "lying."

On Roman's site, I questioned his Christianity, something I do about once a century. Being a Catholic Christian (or a Protestant Christian) means fulfilling many obligations that we'd rather avoid. It doesn't mean manifesting a kind of "Church-Pew-Piety" apparently designed to make one feel good about himself. It doesn't mean making malicious allegations about people (Huckabee and Giuliani) who hold views other than your own.

Christians are under a strict obligation to love their neighbors, all six billion of them, including "illegal" immigrants and the children (often American citizens) of those illegals. People who hate the Second Great Commandment are free, in a sense, to hate their neighbors, whether that neighbor be Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani, or a Guatemalan scaling a fence to get into the land that historically welcomes the "huddled masses yearning to breathe free."

(Much more to come)

Stephen R. Maloney said...

Larry, I'm not going to respond to D. Roman's comment about me, which you can judge for yourself. I will write about him from time to time over the next few days. I haven't decided whether I will endorse Giuliani or Huckabee, but I am very impressed by both -- not seeing either of them as perfect of course. My comments about Mike Huckabee over the course of many months have been positive. I have indicated that he, like all the other candidates, should be extremely candid with the American people. That's a hard thing do in politics, because it can cost one a few votes.

Stephen R. Maloney said...

Larry, I'd love to be able to send a short e-mail to Lee, the minister in Houston. Is there some way I can do so? If he wants to e-mail me (TalkTop65@aol.com) fine, or if you have his e-mail address, please pass it on.

steve

Stephen R. Maloney said...

Larry, I think when you pair a gal and a guy on a political ticket you probably get more diversity than either imagined. I think a Huckabee-Palin ticket would be fine. The suggestion would not come as news to Mike (or to a couple of other candidates). It's typical for a candidate to run somewhat as if he were coming from a desert island. Well, I believe a candidate should talk to people he would want running with him or in his administration. If I were Mike's campaign manager I would be talking to many people and asking for their support. Is there a lot of difference between Sarah and Mike? Not a great deal that I can see. I think both of them will/do get criticized for many of the same things, and the criticisms miss the point. Yes, both have somewhat populist leanings, and that comes partly ut of the states they represent. It also comes out of a Christian tradtion that Sarah was signalling with her remarkable comment of "having a servant's heart." In other words, they try to serve the people who elected them, which would be a novel notion for many Americans. Having two normal fine people might confuse the media and maybe even the electorate. Both people are scrupulously honest, which would confuse the lobbyists. Sarah doesn't like lobbyists, and I bet they're not on Mike's Christmas card list. Who would the lobbyists pay off? They'd need to fall back on the Democrats.

Larry Perrault said...

First of all, Steve, I would leave it to Lee as to whether he wants to get involved with an email exchange, I'll apprise him of your question.

To both Steve and D. Roman: Steve, we've obviously talked a lot and I feel like I have a sense of your good intentions, even when we disagree. And I have been to The Maritime Sentry several times, if I don't remember whether I have commented.

Based on my general though to a considerable extent superficial awareness of both of you, it looks like you have allowed points of disagreement to provoke you to impetuous judgments of character.

This is hardly extraordinary, but rather routine when watching discussions in any forrum. It doesn't matter the subject or the position: people tend to quickly jump from disagreement to talk about lies, deceptions, and duplicity, which I think is usually inaccurate and almost always unproductive.

Steve is sensitive and perhaps reactive to sentiments that he identifies as unChristian and hostile and defensive more than helpful and productive. Those kind of negative dispositions do exist, though they can be perceived by some where they don't. In fact, in the past they have been perceived in me, sometimes even by Stephen, though he has allowed me to address and/or deny the matter, and we have moved on.

Stephen doesn't look anything like a liar to me and in fact is in pursuit of higher ideals. I say that even though I sometimes profoundly disagree with the fruitfulness of his tack and have said so. In other words, I think he is sometimes mistaken as we all are.

Of course, I still support Huckabee and can't imagine how that might change. He is clear about our government's dereliction with regard to the border, while rejecting hostility to people seeking work who are seduced to violate the law that that dereliction makes a mockery of. I could scarcely agree more.

Ironically, over the past few days over the smoking ban matterat a consitutionalist conservative blog, I have been showered with the kind of character attacks that I was just talking about, along with challenges to my constitutional conservatism, though I am a lifelong conservative who has scorned The Republican Party for its unconstitutionalities.

I defended Huckabee's response that he would sign a workplace smoking ban IF CONGRESS PASSED ONE, based on the fact that The United States has taken on enormous fiscal liability for health care and discouraging unhealthy activity and environment id just simple prudence,in terms of both safety and economy. And that liability, though enormous, is only a drop in a literal ocean of unconstitutional mess that the country has gotten itself into.

In fact, I'm going to look at the latest comments American Conservative Daily on
"Huckabee’s Liberal Streak Will Doom His Candidacy"

Anyway, you guys should kiss and makeup. :-)

Larry Perrault said...

Fair Tax talk might have lobbyists seeking out hit men. :-)

Stephen R. Maloney said...

Hey Larry, read the posts by the Romans. If they say someone has "lied," as they did of Giuliani, then it is their obligation to make a factual case for their assertion. They made no such case. That is NOT Christian behavior. Also, even to suggest Newt Gingrich, a walking symbol for adultery and egomania, would add to the debate is perverse. As I said in my own comments section, Mike Huckabee is trying what many think is impossible: to be a Christian and actually to have a chance to win a general election. He is doing all the right things, appealing to union workers (the Machinists) and Blacks (Urban league) and Hispanics (and not the Hispanics consumed with self-loathing). Was there a heavy dose of racism in the anti-immigrant orgy that went on in this country? Guess. I'm sure Mike has at least imagined (as Giuliani does) seeking election in a country where 60% of the voters have tuned him out. Since he's not a man who likes to waste his time, he's making a genuine effort (with immigration and smoking) to position himself as a man who can win a national election. I salute the guy for that. All I'm saying, which is pretty standard political stuff, is a great mystery to people like the Romans and the guy who thought Mike was condemned to perdition because he played a Willie Nelson song. P.S. I like Willie Nelson.

Larry Perrault said...

I like Willie Nelson's MUSIC.

I said that I think it's useless to hastily talk about "lying" But, it's also normal when you disgree, especially when you feel under attack.

Of course there's latent racism, anxiety about difference in some of the immigration policy fervor. It's a big country. No doubt there's overt racism, too.

But it's as wrong as calling people "liars" to indict a huge population of people who are concerned about illegal immigration because there are some on their side of an issue.

Some people will say Republicans are bigots and or selfish, that . Christians are aspiring tyrants and some probably are as there are so many that wear the respective labels. But that's irrelevant to the virtue wisdom of public policy.

I'm thinking about posting some of that conversation I had about Huckabee and a workplace smoking ban. Ideally, government shouldn't involve itself in private matters. But we are worlds away from am ideal world, with the state having taken on responsibility for health care, both in economic fact and in public perception. Being constitutionally meticulous above economic and safety prudence is a posture with no value for real life.

I'm not God. I can't determine where Rudy Giuliani has lied and don't need to. I'm just positive that he's WRONG about things that make him unsuited to be chief executive of The United States. As I said, Idon't want engineers building structures who don't understand basic mathematics. And I don't want an American leader who doesn't understand America's foundational principles...especially dragging Republicanism down with him.

Lee said...

Caught myself listening to a re-broadcast of Sean Hannity on the way home tonight. Normally, I wouldn't be caught dead listening to talk radio, but he caught my ear tonight. Essentially, he said--

1. McCain won the debate, and we need to wait a couple of days to see what that did for him in the polls in New Hampshire. It's possible, due to the nature of the early primary there, and the effect that events there have on voters elsewhere, that it could elevate McCain back to being one of the front runners, and cause the campaign contribution trickle to start flowing again.

2. According to polls in NH today, essentially, the Republican debate last night handed the state and its electoral votes over to the Democratic candidate, whoever that may be.

3. Fred Thompson's announced candidacy on Jay Leno, and his absence from the debate, are signs that the Republican race is wide open, and Thompson may be intending to run some kind of renegade campaign. Interesting development.

4. I got the impression that Hannity is heart and soul for Mit Romney. Would his obvious bias push enough Republicans to Romney to tip the nomination to him?

Larry Perrault said...

I don't know. I don't listen to Sean Hannity. I haven't listened to talk-radio for years. But this year, I HAVE started listening to a couple of THOUGHTFUL hosts.

Sometimes, it's all looking kind of silly to me...all the primary jockeying, the media circuses, and the emotionally reflexive reactions of the voters...

Stephen R. Maloney said...

"I'm not God. I can't determine where Rudy Giuliani has lied and don't need to. I'm just positive that he's WRONG about things that make him unsuited to be chief executive of The United States. As I said, Idon't want engineers building structures who don't understand basic mathematics. And I don't want an American leader who doesn't understand America's foundational principles...especially dragging Republicanism down with him."

Larry, my point was that when we disagree with people, even when the issues are important ones, we shouldn't accuse them of lying. We can accuse them of being wrong if we have evidence that's the case. On the question of immigration, I said that after Bush proposed an additional $4.3 billion for border security the phone lines still lit up with anti-Mexican types. The defeat of Comprehensive Immigratin Reform had nothing to do with border security. It was a case of handing the issue to the Democrats, almost all of whom support the Kennedy proposals that will be very short on border security. Why should the Democrats care a whit about border security? They suffer zero political consequences, while good men like McCain and Kyl get pilloried. As Lee says, NH is probably lost to the Dems. What about Florida, with its big Hispanic population. Same thing. Arizona? Colorado? New Mexico? I have a hunch we're going to see a wall of blue on election night in 2008.

What is the Christian response to immigration, legal and illegal, especially as regards the millions of children here with the illegals? Unfortunately, since they aren't foetuses they don't come under the (often dubious) protection of the pro-life movement. Life doesn't end at birth to quote one heroic soul. Frankly, those kids are welcome in my house, even if they fill it up to the rafters.

Larry Perrault said...

As I think I've mentioned in our exchanges, Huckabee got flak for allowing the children of ilegal immigrants to compete for scholarships. It's one thing to sanction people for breaking the law. "But, I'm not going to punish their children who have worked through the school system and qualified to compete for scholarships."

I'll answer tyhis more fully and some other things at your blog post, today.

Larry