Because all Republican presidential hopefuls these days want to cast themselves as reincarnations of Ronald Reagan, the setting for tonight’s first 2008 GOP debatepromises to fuel the mimicry: the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif., with Nancy Reagan looking on. Republican strategist Rich Galen said front-runners Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney should view this as "batting practice" and avoid injury. Further back in the 10-pack, Sam Brownback had better swing for the fences if he has any hope of moving up in the polls. The fun starts at 7 p.m. our time on MSNBC (cable Channel 24 in Wichita).
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- CapnAmerica on Let immigrants run
- ANTI on Let immigrants run
- CapnAmerica on Let immigrants run
- CapnAmerica on Let immigrants run
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- Rage on Let immigrants run
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- XXX on Open thread 11/23
37 Comments
And for those of us who refuse to pay to be innundated with commercials, we’ll be watching re-runs of American Idol or some such schlock.
Actually, I’ll be watching “House, MD” on DVD from Netflicks.
No commercial interruptions. I love it.
As a Republican, I guess I should watch, but I refuse. The candidates are all so, um what is the most polite word? Uninspiring.If these are the best the GOP has to offer…..
littlejohn: if you are indeed a Republican, you need to buck up. Our leading candidates are light years ahead of the leading Dem candidates in terms of relevant experience and accomplishment. I am sorry that they leave you uninspired. But do you really know all 10 candidates?!
I expect more than this out of my merry men.
Robin
Outlander-
At this point, I am not comparing the Republican candidates against the Democrats. That is for another today. Today, I compare them against what I would like to see. I am sure I don;t know all 10 candidates as well as I should, and will know, in the future, but the leading contenders do little to inspire me.
Merry republican men? Now that does sound scary.
Wanted to say that also MSNMC and politico.com will be streaming it on the internet to my fellow cheapskates who won’t purchase cable.
The key for republican candidates in ‘08 is how far they can distance themselves from the Bush-failure.
The MSNBC coverage of the debate will be commercial free, but with ten candidates, you won’t hear much of any consequence.
But, like watching a train wreck, I set will be turned to Channel 24 at seven.
Too bad that it is preempting Olbermann.
I understand, WSC; take heart, though, I understand KO will be physically present and involved in the coverage.
Maybe they can do a version of “50 ways to leave your lover”.
How many marriages/divorces among the front-runners?
TIVO is a good thing…TV schedules do not bind me.
No what binds you is the GOP crap you swallow constantly. Take an x-lax and relieve the pressure.
Sure thing mike, I’ll save it up for you, put it in a paper bag, light in on fire, ring your doorbell and scamper away laughing while you stomp out the fire. :)
Hey Mike?
You know what the difference between a Democrat and a Jack Ass is?
Sadly Republican I am sure you are gonna tell me. So let’s hear it.
Don’t take my last post personally. Just a play on words. If you smiled then it accomplished the goal
I didn’t think you knew the difference Mike is why I posed the question. ;)
You know who else just loved to use the smiley faces?
Consulting is good. One can make two years salary for one month of work. :)
Posted by: JM | January 23, 2007 at 01:11 PM
*****
Just a coincidence, that’s all.
Pure coincidence.
It will be interesting to see how they play the ‘appear to distance myself from Bush for the larger audience, while simultaneously appearing to fete him for the consumption of the 28 percenters who make up the base of the Republican Party and the GOP primary voting bloc’ game.
ddub – BOTH parties have that problem. Candidates have to try to appeal to the ‘true believers’ in the primaries and then to the rest of us in November.
Doing the Iraq-dance for the true believers is what I think has been causing McCain to drop in the polls.
I think they may want to have a chiropractor on stand-by tonight. Some of these guys may hurt themselves twisting themselves into knots trying to justify/deny the Iraq War.
And why would a Ronald Reagan incarnation be a good thing? Do we all forget the fact that Ronald Reagan and Daddy Bush were the ones that gave the weapons to Saddam Hussein in the first place?
Junior Bush is just following daddy’s footsteps. The only difference is – Junior doesn’t have a clue as to what he is doing and a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
They should call that debate “Chain Of Fools”
“TIVO is a good thing…TV schedules do not bind me.”
Not on subject but I have to say it is one of the great inventions of the century! Especially that 30 second skip button!
“At this point, I am not comparing the Republican candidates against the Democrats. That is for another today. ”
I am comparing them. Let’s see- the Republicans are the party of “balanced budgets” and “fiscal discipline” while the Democrats are the “tax and spend party”. Who had the budget balanced?The Republicans are the party of God and “family values” while the Democrats are all liberal fag lovers. Yet which party has the most candidates that are divorced- or even divorced more than once? Which party has the candidates that had the most girlfriends out of marriage? Yes, Clinton did a filthy low down thing but he is not as low as people like Newt who left his wife in the hospital with cancer and filed for divorce so he could marry his girlfriend. I could go on but you get the picture. I hope that Rudy gets the nomination so we can discuss multiple marriages, infidelity, public funding of all abortions, gun control and gay marriage. Let’s see who is really “liberal” here.
Reagan is being mentioned quite a bit in this thing. Doesn’t a presidential candidate want to be his own man? I think it’s a mistake to keep mentioning Reagan over and over again. It makes you think these new guys don’t have much to distinguish themselves. Would Reagan keep going back and mentioning someone who came before him? I was a kid when he ran and I don’t remember if he continually mentioned a predecessor.
Huckabee surprised me with his answer about outsourcing. He argued that Republicans should try to prevent CEO’s from outsourcing American jobs and then taking huge bonuses. The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board will disagree with the gentleman from Arkansas.
The debate is almost over and I wonder how the analysts will say the players performed. I predict they’re going to say McCain was a little to excited early on and that Rudy held up better than expected, though he may be too liberal ultimately. Did any of the underdogs stand out? Too hard to predict but I think Huckabee might have a shot. I don’t think Romney can take it. Don’t ask me why. He’s almost too smooth and too clean cut.
Huckabee seems very calm and centered and comfortable with himself. He doesn’t get ahead of himself when he talks. He doesn’t come off as an extremist. I don’t know that much about his policies and the 60 second format is too fast, pretty much impossible. But I still say Huckabee was solid. We’ll see.
Huckabee did the best for the relatively unknowns. I was about ready to sew McCain’s stubby arm motions to his suit.
Brownback needs to get eyelid surgery or something. He looked like he was squinting to see something that wasn’t there.
Romney looked to me like a typical Mormon I have met in my lifetime – dynamic, affable, but someone white collar standard driven (WAS – minus the P.)
Duncan Hunter I like, but by the end of the debate I wanted to go find a shovel for him, so he could finish the border fence.
Tancredo – Was he there? (shrugs)Actually he did okay, but was more a cheerleader of Virginia than focusing on the discussion.
Tommy Thompson – I was ready to go buy some Wisconsin cheese, but wasn’t really impressed otherwise.
Ron Paul – Wrong Party imo. He should be a Libertarian or Independent.
Giuliani – Glib,fast, 911 Fame still clings to him. Too New Yorkish and East Coaster.
Republican:
Great takes. I concur.
I found myself looking for name tags so I could tell who some of these guys were.
I too thought Huckabee appeared very solid and articulate. Romney appeared very well prepared and controlled. MCCain did OK. Rudy is, I’m afraid, too liberal to make it through to the nomination. If he was nominated, he is very electable.
Saying “I’m sorry” fails to soothe public angerBy Tabassum Zakaria Thu May 3, 4:55 PM ET
These days, saying sorry isn’t working in official Washington, where Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz are fighting to keep their jobs. Each has offered a public apology, with little reward.
Political analysts say the people want action.
“The public responds to events. Taking responsibility is very nice, but does it end the war or win the war faster because he says ‘I take responsibility’?” said Stephen Hess, a professor of media and public affairs at George Washington University in Washington.
For example, when Bush unveiled a new Iraq strategy in January to send 21,500 extra troops nearly four years after the invasion, he acknowledged a mistake in not deploying more forces sooner.
“The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people, and it is unacceptable to me,” Bush said in a televised White House address. “Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.”
He sounded a similar note about six weeks after The Washington Post reported shabby treatment of wounded troops at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
Bush went to the hospital and said: “I apologize for what they went through, and we’re going to fix the problem.”
Bush was sharply criticized for first backing the head of the federal emergency response to Hurricane Katrina, the worst natural disaster to hit the United States, before taking responsibility two weeks later to counter public outrage.
Katrina devastated the Gulf region in August 2005 and resulted in some 1,300 deaths.
Gonzales was criticized for mishandling the firing of eight U.S. attorneys last year and came under harsh criticism from U.S. lawmakers last month when he said nothing improper occurred but that “my misstatements were my mistakes.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070503/pl_nm/usa_politics_sorry_dc**************************************************
Here’s the crucial test for any Republic candidate who wants to win: don’t reach the same conclusion that we all know by know GW Bush will reach from the article above.
Bush will just stop apologizing, which of course is the wrong thing to do. (But hey, he’s not known as Augustus Stupidus for nothin’, ya know)
Any Republican who wants a snowball’s chance in hell of winning in 2008 will figure out how NOT to reach the same mistak…conclusions Bush reaches (and without fail, too; the guy’s uncanny that way).
Yeah, I threw in a joke or two but my point stands: Bush will just stop apologizing. Better advice is “don’t do that.”
I watched most of the GOP debate and some of the Democratic debate, some thing struck me about both.There seem to be no point in asking a pointed question, not if you want a pointed answer. You will either get “I was for it till I was against it before I was for it” or something that has nothing to do with the question. I understand they have to throw a bone to everyone, but it would be nice if you could at least get a understanding of their understanding of an issue. As what could be expected, the subject of Abortion for the Republicans is a fundamental answer. The majority of the candidates give an answer that was acceptable to the religious base.
As for the Democrats, on Iraq is was that we are against it but no real pointed course other then the commission report. Now I agree with most of what the report did outline, but we do not need more of the generalities we need a real course. generalities have not worked well so far in Iraq.
I want a candidate that when asked a pointed question stay on the topic even if they answer is I need to study it before I can answer well. We now live in a world where politics as usual will not do, we need a leader not a politico.
I am with you on that point, Dub Dog. I found myself saying to the television (like that does any good) “JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!
I do have a great deal of comfort with a politician – Dem or Rep – that can’t just answer a simple question.
I do NOT have a great deal…..
“Reagan is being mentioned quite a bit in this thing. Doesn’t a presidential candidate want to be his own man? I think it’s a mistake to keep mentioning Reagan over and over again.”
The whole thing reminded me of the old TV game show “To Tell The Truth” where all of the contestants say “I am Ronald Reagan” and the moderator says “will the REAL Ronald Reagan please stand up”
In both presidential debates, the politicians have been eager to come off as tough on terrorism. They apparently think it’s important to convey to voters that, if elected, they will handle the matter of national security with great conviction and force. No one disputes that national security is an important issue, but you wonder sometimes if the presentations are a bit over-the-top.
Last night, there were moments when savvy speakers like Romney even took it too far. McCain nearly appeared dictatorial at various points.
To be fair, the Democrats did the same thing in their debate.
Is this sort of thing effective in terms of letting adversaries know that a politician will be tough? Conventional wisdom would say yes, but I have my doubts. I wonder if a more understated approach would hit the nail on the head. You have to keep it in mind that people, as a general rule, fear what they don’t understand. A politician who is wholly understood by an adversary is therefore not as troublesome as one who seems a bit unfathomable. To do a variation on Churchill, a statesman who is “an enigma wrapped in a riddle inside of a puzzle.”
I might be wrong, of course, since I haven’t really studied foreign policy in great depth.
But I do wonder if the contenders from both parties have room for improvement in finding the proper balance and sending the right message.
Not only is Ronald Reagan’s Republic Party just as dead as he is, it smells about as bad.
The 30% or so who inexplicably think George WMD Bush isn’t an incompetent oaf are the very people 10 middle-aged (some older) white men must pander to if they’re going to win the GOP nomination. Since it’ll take a simple majority to win at the convention, these 10 white men are fighting over 15% + 1 Americans. If that’s not the definition of a fringe party, tell me what is.
This is a party for the 1 out of 5 dentists who recommend sugary gum for their patients who chew gum. This is a party for people whose rejection of evolution must assume there were saber-tooth poodles scampering around to avoid getting stomped on by Tyranasauris Rex. The Republican Party is for people who believe if we only eliminated all taxes the Federal Treasury would be flooded with money.
The Republic Party has devolved into the “Pollution is Good,” a “Living Wage is Bad,” and “Every Sperm is Sacred” party. Throw in a bit of “Brown People are Bad,” — Arabs, Mexicans, teenaged loose women (their tans, you know) — and you’ve got your Republic Party presidential candidate for 2008.
Good luck with that coalition.