Hard to do worse than the dysfunctional, broken status quo
Hatchet
By Lucas Roebuck
One sure way to lose friends as a political columnist is to write about immigration reform. Either you end up being called a racist or a turncoat to the conservative cause — or other unsavory words, the sort that make junior high types feel empowered when they utter them.
For the many on the “conservative” side, nothing short of mass deportation of illegal immigrants will do. For the “progressive” side, open borders is the only humane way of dealing the issue. People who find their political passion burns on immigration tend to see it as an all-or-nothing issue. Those in the middle of the road often end up a hood ornament on Mack Truck.
Because of this, the voices of the immigration middle ground, more than any other divisive issue, are limp wristed and cowering in dark places. This is why the Republican-controlled congress for many years just kept punting the issue down the next session instead of taking the pigskin and heading for the end zone. Many Republican voters wanted to send a message to the GOP legislators who were squishy on immigration enforcement — one of the reasons the Republicans had their heads handed to them in 2006. The effect of the message sent by disgruntled GOPers was cutting of one’s nose to spite ones face. No, it was more like cutting off one’s head to spite one’s nose. With the Democrats holding congressional power, anything that looks like what conservatives want on immigration reform is DOA.
I tend to fall towards the conservative side of this issue, insofar as that I believe that peril and chaos await us when we don’t enforce our laws, which is exactly what is happening now. When law the law is flaunted, lawlessness abounds, propagating like so many proverbial rabbits. Unfortunately, we’ve come to a place where enforcing the law has become logistically impossible, even if we were to get cooperation from all the governing agencies involved, from the White House down to the municipal powers.
As much as conservatives hate the Bush administration’s mediocre enforcement of our immigration laws, Bush is no weaker on immigration than any of his immediate predecessors. Even the greatest president of our age, Ronald Reagan, was responsible for the largest amnesty for illegal immigrants in memorable history.
Even if Rep. Tom Tancredo, probably the only GOP presidential candidate with purist immigration credentials for conservatives, were elected to the Big Job, the status quo would prevail. While Bush could certainly do more, getting state and local law enforcement officials — not to mention bleeding heart city councils that are openly defying immigration laws in their jurisdictions — to work with the Feds is problematic at best. Those who oppose current immigration laws (which should be enforced) have already sabotaged the system beyond repair. And if Bush or Tancredo or anyone else became extra-serious about enforcing borders, you can bet your grandmother’s apple pie that the Democrats in congress will do everything in their power to thwart such an effort.
The Republicans, cowering from their own base, lacked the courage to pass immigration reform when they controlled congress. This means that now immigration reform is going to happen on the terms of the Democrats — conservatives need to get over this fact soon, because fundamentally some immigration reform is better than no reform.
For example, under the status quo, we don’t even know who is here in this country. Under the status quo, illegals basically are facing no penalties for identity theft, illegal entry, etc. Under the status quo, the wall is getting built slowly.
I am not saying that we should swallow the whole whale of an immigration bill that Congress and President Bush will be serving up without spitting anything out. However, we need immigration reform that offers: real border security (370 miles of fence, 18,000 new Border Patrol agents, ground radar and camera towers on the Mexican-American border); a way to keep track of all foreigners on our soil; real, enforced penalties for law breakers who come here illegally (and the people who hire them), and a system that provides incentive for unskilled guest workers and employers to do all their business above board.
If we can get these things for a compromise that offers some illegal aliens a pathway to legal residency (a.k.a. amnesty), then we may be in a better place than the status quo. The pathway that is being suggested isn’t an easy one, including stiff monetary penalties and a requirement to learn English. Obviously, the fair thing to do would be to kick illegals to the back of the immigration line.
Even in politics, we often find that life is not fair.
Resetting the broken, dysfunctional immigration system with a new enforceable compromise may be the fairest deal anyone is going to get. It’s certainly better than the de facto anything goes joke of an immigration policy we have now.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Huckabee Moves Up the Pack
Former Arkansas Governor finishes 2nd out of 10 in GOP debate
Hatchet
By Lucas Roebuck
As an Arkansas expatriate and an admitted Mike Huckabee fanboy, I have to Huckabee’s performance made me feel like I was betting on the right horse. For a “second tier” candidate, the former governor stepped up to the plate, swung for the fences and hit several balls out of the park during Tuesday night’s GOP presidential debate.
The pundits and bloggers I dug through Tuesday night had no consensus on who won the Fox News-hosted debate (they seemed to be split over the three front-runners), but everyone seemed to agree that Huckabee came in second place out of the 10 Republican hopefuls. The only question now is if Huckabee can translate his debate success into cash contributions to keep his presidential campaign alive.
Huckabee’s quip that Congress spends like Sen. John Edwards in a beauty salon was priceless, and probably the second most memorable point of the debate, after former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani’s excoriating of Rep. Ron Paul’s isolationist statements.
Here is my ranking of the candidate performances.
1. Gov. Mitt Romney. The more I know about Romney, the less I like him. He seems to me like an opportunist who will pour honey into the ears of whoever he needs to in order to get elected. That being said, he did a good job under fire of dodging questions about his center-left policies as governor of Massachusetts and spinning them into conservative terms. He’s a snake oil salesman, and unfortunately, he’s good at it.
2. Gov. Mike Huckabee. The Fox News moderators hit Huckabee with the hardest obstacles his presidential quest faces: taxation and the clemency issue. Huckabee obviously knew these hard questions were coming and deflected them well. More importantly, Huckabee was chosen to debate Giuliani’s abortion-rights statement, cementing Huckabee’s position as a credible anti-abortion candidate while giving him top-tier face time.
3. Mayor Rudy Giuliani. The hard-talking mayor gets props for shooting straight instead of trying to give some double speak on social issues, which I think voters can respect. The only problem is he is straight shooting for the center-left side. Conservatives know that Giuliani isn’t their guy, but the mayor convinced them they could live with him because of his strong foreign policy convictions, if somehow he gets the nomination. Many pundits commented that Giuliani seemed more presidential than the other candidates, a point that I agree on.
4. Rep. Duncan Hunter. Hunter could become a player in this election, because he offers a strong, credible immigration reform platform, but isn’t seen bound as a one issue, anti-immigration candidate like Rep. Tom Tancredo. A long-time House member, Hunter showed breadth of knowledge while reminding GOP voters that his bill to put a wall on more of the Mexico-American border is being too slowly implemented by the Bush administration.
5. Sen. John McCain. McCain started off strong with his resolve to win the war in Iraq, but otherwise floundered. I believe this debate is the beginning of the end of McCain’s presidential ambitions. Giuliani is stealing McCain’s hawkish thunder, and Giuliani is getting all the love from the leftleaning press as well. McCain had all the media love in 2000, but realized (after George W. Bush beat him up and down in the GOP primary ) that he had to appeal to conservative voters, not the media, in order to get the nomination. The hour is too late for McCain.
6. Sen. Sam Brownback. Brownback needed to seem presidential and knowledgeable, but he came off seeming kooky and unconnected.
7. Gov. Jim Gilmore. Gilmore was offered the opportunity to go negative, and he tore into that red meat. The only problem is everyone remembers what Gilmore said about others, which drew precious attention away from his strengths. Gilmore is hardly known as a candidate and could not afford to cut others at the expense of giving up his own prop time.
8. Rep. Tom Tancredo. Tancredo really needed to prove that he was more than a protest candidate there to articulate the GOP’s poor track record on immigration. He failed to expand his base beyond his immigration reform supporters in Tuesday’s debate.
9. Rep. Ron Paul. When you have the moderators asking you twice if you are in the wrong party, then you know you are in trouble. I give Paul kudos for sticking to his guns with an unpopular position, but his statements made it clear that he is living in a pre-Sept. 11 world.
10. Gov. Tommy Thompson. Thompson is a capable administrator. But when he couldn’t name three government programs that were wasteful, he essentially ended his presidential campaign. He was the most boring and wooden of the candidates.
Hatchet
By Lucas Roebuck
As an Arkansas expatriate and an admitted Mike Huckabee fanboy, I have to Huckabee’s performance made me feel like I was betting on the right horse. For a “second tier” candidate, the former governor stepped up to the plate, swung for the fences and hit several balls out of the park during Tuesday night’s GOP presidential debate.
The pundits and bloggers I dug through Tuesday night had no consensus on who won the Fox News-hosted debate (they seemed to be split over the three front-runners), but everyone seemed to agree that Huckabee came in second place out of the 10 Republican hopefuls. The only question now is if Huckabee can translate his debate success into cash contributions to keep his presidential campaign alive.
Huckabee’s quip that Congress spends like Sen. John Edwards in a beauty salon was priceless, and probably the second most memorable point of the debate, after former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani’s excoriating of Rep. Ron Paul’s isolationist statements.
Here is my ranking of the candidate performances.
1. Gov. Mitt Romney. The more I know about Romney, the less I like him. He seems to me like an opportunist who will pour honey into the ears of whoever he needs to in order to get elected. That being said, he did a good job under fire of dodging questions about his center-left policies as governor of Massachusetts and spinning them into conservative terms. He’s a snake oil salesman, and unfortunately, he’s good at it.
2. Gov. Mike Huckabee. The Fox News moderators hit Huckabee with the hardest obstacles his presidential quest faces: taxation and the clemency issue. Huckabee obviously knew these hard questions were coming and deflected them well. More importantly, Huckabee was chosen to debate Giuliani’s abortion-rights statement, cementing Huckabee’s position as a credible anti-abortion candidate while giving him top-tier face time.
3. Mayor Rudy Giuliani. The hard-talking mayor gets props for shooting straight instead of trying to give some double speak on social issues, which I think voters can respect. The only problem is he is straight shooting for the center-left side. Conservatives know that Giuliani isn’t their guy, but the mayor convinced them they could live with him because of his strong foreign policy convictions, if somehow he gets the nomination. Many pundits commented that Giuliani seemed more presidential than the other candidates, a point that I agree on.
4. Rep. Duncan Hunter. Hunter could become a player in this election, because he offers a strong, credible immigration reform platform, but isn’t seen bound as a one issue, anti-immigration candidate like Rep. Tom Tancredo. A long-time House member, Hunter showed breadth of knowledge while reminding GOP voters that his bill to put a wall on more of the Mexico-American border is being too slowly implemented by the Bush administration.
5. Sen. John McCain. McCain started off strong with his resolve to win the war in Iraq, but otherwise floundered. I believe this debate is the beginning of the end of McCain’s presidential ambitions. Giuliani is stealing McCain’s hawkish thunder, and Giuliani is getting all the love from the leftleaning press as well. McCain had all the media love in 2000, but realized (after George W. Bush beat him up and down in the GOP primary ) that he had to appeal to conservative voters, not the media, in order to get the nomination. The hour is too late for McCain.
6. Sen. Sam Brownback. Brownback needed to seem presidential and knowledgeable, but he came off seeming kooky and unconnected.
7. Gov. Jim Gilmore. Gilmore was offered the opportunity to go negative, and he tore into that red meat. The only problem is everyone remembers what Gilmore said about others, which drew precious attention away from his strengths. Gilmore is hardly known as a candidate and could not afford to cut others at the expense of giving up his own prop time.
8. Rep. Tom Tancredo. Tancredo really needed to prove that he was more than a protest candidate there to articulate the GOP’s poor track record on immigration. He failed to expand his base beyond his immigration reform supporters in Tuesday’s debate.
9. Rep. Ron Paul. When you have the moderators asking you twice if you are in the wrong party, then you know you are in trouble. I give Paul kudos for sticking to his guns with an unpopular position, but his statements made it clear that he is living in a pre-Sept. 11 world.
10. Gov. Tommy Thompson. Thompson is a capable administrator. But when he couldn’t name three government programs that were wasteful, he essentially ended his presidential campaign. He was the most boring and wooden of the candidates.
Reaction to Huckabee after debate 2
Here is some of the positive things folks had to say about Gov. Mike Huckabee's debate performance.
On the front page of the The State (Columbia, South Carolina Newspaper)
---QUOTE---
Tuesday night’s Republican presidential debate in Columbia did little to alter the campaign landscape.
The only exception, as candidates depart for a summer in Iowa ahead of that state’s key straw poll, is Mike Huckabee. The former Arkansas governor might now be considered the only viable second-tier candidate able to challenge the top three, said S.C. Republican political consultant Chip Felkel.
---END QUOTE---
The Examiner.com (affiliated with three newspapers by that name, including the SF Examiner):
---QUOTE---
Based on his widely praised performances in Tuesday’s debate and an earlier debate in California, Huckabee’s bump might be taking shape. Pundits and politicians say he is rapidly ascending into the top tier of GOP candidates, an elite group that until Tuesday had been limited to Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney.
“I thought tonight you saw, in my view, an expansion from three to four,” former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steel told The Examiner in the post-debate “spin room” at the University of South Carolina in Columbia. “Tonight you saw a great shift.”
Fellow Republican Rich Galen was also impressed by Huckabee’s performance.
"Huckabee did well enough so that the big three is now the big three and a half,” the political analyst concluded.
---END QUOTE
Source: http://www.examiner.com/a-730994~Huckabee_shows_he_can_run_with_the_bulls.html
Headingright.com calls Huckabee the biggest winner of the debate...
---QUOTE---
Winners
1. Mike Huckabee- by far the most articulate and philosophically sound conservative on last night’s panel. Also had the funniest line of the night at the expense of John Edwards!
---END QUOTE
Source: http://headingright.com/
Michelle Malkin, live blogging the debate:
---QUOTE----
McCain still believes the 2006 midterms loss was more about spending than the war. Pulls out his tired old drunken sailor joke. Obligatory laughter.
Mike Huckabee tops McCain: Congress spending money like John Edwards at a beauty shop. Big laughter and applause.
Score.
---END QUOTE---
Source: michellemalkin.com
In her post debate summary, Malkin opines
---QUOTE---
I've criticized and remain critical Huckabee's immigration stance, but he did well for himself again tonight. Will he be the next president? Probably not. But he made a solid, respectable showing.
---END QUOTE---
Blogger Sister Toldjah gives 2nd place props to Huckabee:
---QUOTE---
Who do I think won? I need to read the transcript because sometimes it’s hard to get a good feel for what was said when you’re liveblogging, but here are my initial impressions: Huckabee sounded great, committed to life, but I have to give the edge to Romney.
---END QUOTE---
Source: http://sistertoldjah.com/
David Brody of CBN reacts positively for Huckabee
---QUOTE---
Overall, I thought Mike Huckabee did really well again tonight. He was smooth and likeable just like he was a few weeks ago in California. He had the line of the night when he said "Congress has spent money like John Edwards at a beauty shop". Classic. C'mon, even Edwards had to laugh at that one. (OK, maybe not)
Tancredo, Hunter and Brownback all did much better tonight but I still think that Huckabee has distanced himself from the others.
---END QUOTE---
Source: http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/158584.aspx
Although I didn't see the original source, Don Suber is reporting on his blog CNN also gave Huckabee the number 2 spot.
--QUOTE---
Ed Rollins on CNN put it 1. Rudy, 2. Huckabee, 3. McCain.
--END QUOTE
Source: http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber
Rush Linbaugh talks about Huckabee and Chris Matthew's reaction to the Edwards Hair line at this link:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_051607/content/01125121.guest.html
- Lucas Roebuck
On the front page of the The State (Columbia, South Carolina Newspaper)
---QUOTE---
Tuesday night’s Republican presidential debate in Columbia did little to alter the campaign landscape.
The only exception, as candidates depart for a summer in Iowa ahead of that state’s key straw poll, is Mike Huckabee. The former Arkansas governor might now be considered the only viable second-tier candidate able to challenge the top three, said S.C. Republican political consultant Chip Felkel.
---END QUOTE---
The Examiner.com (affiliated with three newspapers by that name, including the SF Examiner):
---QUOTE---
Based on his widely praised performances in Tuesday’s debate and an earlier debate in California, Huckabee’s bump might be taking shape. Pundits and politicians say he is rapidly ascending into the top tier of GOP candidates, an elite group that until Tuesday had been limited to Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney.
“I thought tonight you saw, in my view, an expansion from three to four,” former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steel told The Examiner in the post-debate “spin room” at the University of South Carolina in Columbia. “Tonight you saw a great shift.”
Fellow Republican Rich Galen was also impressed by Huckabee’s performance.
"Huckabee did well enough so that the big three is now the big three and a half,” the political analyst concluded.
---END QUOTE
Source: http://www.examiner.com/a-730994~Huckabee_shows_he_can_run_with_the_bulls.html
Headingright.com calls Huckabee the biggest winner of the debate...
---QUOTE---
Winners
1. Mike Huckabee- by far the most articulate and philosophically sound conservative on last night’s panel. Also had the funniest line of the night at the expense of John Edwards!
---END QUOTE
Source: http://headingright.com/
Michelle Malkin, live blogging the debate:
---QUOTE----
McCain still believes the 2006 midterms loss was more about spending than the war. Pulls out his tired old drunken sailor joke. Obligatory laughter.
Mike Huckabee tops McCain: Congress spending money like John Edwards at a beauty shop. Big laughter and applause.
Score.
---END QUOTE---
Source: michellemalkin.com
In her post debate summary, Malkin opines
---QUOTE---
I've criticized and remain critical Huckabee's immigration stance, but he did well for himself again tonight. Will he be the next president? Probably not. But he made a solid, respectable showing.
---END QUOTE---
Blogger Sister Toldjah gives 2nd place props to Huckabee:
---QUOTE---
Who do I think won? I need to read the transcript because sometimes it’s hard to get a good feel for what was said when you’re liveblogging, but here are my initial impressions: Huckabee sounded great, committed to life, but I have to give the edge to Romney.
---END QUOTE---
Source: http://sistertoldjah.com/
David Brody of CBN reacts positively for Huckabee
---QUOTE---
Overall, I thought Mike Huckabee did really well again tonight. He was smooth and likeable just like he was a few weeks ago in California. He had the line of the night when he said "Congress has spent money like John Edwards at a beauty shop". Classic. C'mon, even Edwards had to laugh at that one. (OK, maybe not)
Tancredo, Hunter and Brownback all did much better tonight but I still think that Huckabee has distanced himself from the others.
---END QUOTE---
Source: http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/158584.aspx
Although I didn't see the original source, Don Suber is reporting on his blog CNN also gave Huckabee the number 2 spot.
--QUOTE---
Ed Rollins on CNN put it 1. Rudy, 2. Huckabee, 3. McCain.
--END QUOTE
Source: http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber
Rush Linbaugh talks about Huckabee and Chris Matthew's reaction to the Edwards Hair line at this link:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_051607/content/01125121.guest.html
- Lucas Roebuck
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
If I was forced to pick a Democrat...
The Devil I know is better.
Hatchet
By Lucas Roebuck
In case you haven’t noticed, the Republicans haven’t exactly been walking in a land of milk and honey recently. For the GOP faithful, the stroll has been more like one through the valley of the shadow of death.
The party of the elephant isn’t very popular right now, so much so that even Rush Limbaugh has suggested that a Democrat — Sen. Hillary Clinton — has an 80 percent chance of winning the White House in 2008. Obviously, campaigns change things, but if all things remain equal, the Democrats clearly have the advantage going into next year’s presidential election cycle.
Now, I would pick any major GOP candidate over any major Democratic candidate, but if I had to live under a Democrat as commander in chief, here is how I would rank my preference of the current donkey candidates:
1. Sen. Hillary Clinton. Hillary is like the devil incarnate to many conservative Republicans, and I have to admit, I don’t like the prospect of another Clinton presidency. However, sometimes we have to remember who our enemies are. Some lefties like to think President Bush is the real enemy. Some righties like to think Hillary is the real enemy. Both are wrong. Hillary has proven that she can be hawkish if need be, more so than the other Democrats. More than any of the other Democrat candidates, I think Hillary will govern toward the political center, especially on foreign policy.
Conventional wisdom suggests that Hillary is the brains behind the Bill / Hillary operation. However, I’m inclined to agree with commentator Michelle Malkin, who argues that Bill has far more political smarts than Hillary. Unfortunately, this is starting to show as Hillary squanders her lead to Sen. Barack Obama.
2. Sen. Joe Biden. My biggest criticism of Democrats on Iraq is that their only alternative to the Bush plan is defeat. Well, Biden actually has a plan for Iraq that isn’t defeat. He wants to split Iraq up into three states: One for Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis. More so than the pretty boy one-two punch of Sen. Barack Obama and former Sen. John “ $ 400 haircut” Edwards, Biden has substance and intellect, and is less likely to be influenced by quickly changing opinion polls.
3. Gov. Bill Richardson. The New Mexico governor has both foreign and domestic policy experience and in some ways is a (Bill) Clintonite. I don’t think Richardson would do anything too radical as president.
4. Sen. Barack Obama. Obama is a showman who talks a nice talk, but hides a dangerously liberal voting record in the Senate. (His record is far to the left of Hillary’s. ) In many ways, Obama is an unknown quantity, which means we’re not sure what we get if we hire him for the top job. Obama’s plan for Iraq is a non-plan. He naively thinks that neighboring states — such as rivals Saudi Arabia and Iran, and terror supporting states such as Syria — will really work in the interest of the Iraqi people and not increasing their own regional power.
5. Sen. John Edwards. I hate to say it, but the man is an empty suit. Okay, I don’t hate to say it. He looks good and is articulate, but he brings nothing to the table, except six unremarkable years of Senate experience. On the campaign trail in 2004, Edwards showed that he didn’t even have enough leadership potential to carry his own state, which tells me his election to the Senate was a fluke. Edwards is only a player because he is good at pouring honey down the ears of the left-wing base that powers the Democrat primaries. This trial lawyer should be doing dandruff shampoo TV commercials for Head and Shoulders, not running for president.
Hatchet
By Lucas Roebuck
In case you haven’t noticed, the Republicans haven’t exactly been walking in a land of milk and honey recently. For the GOP faithful, the stroll has been more like one through the valley of the shadow of death.
The party of the elephant isn’t very popular right now, so much so that even Rush Limbaugh has suggested that a Democrat — Sen. Hillary Clinton — has an 80 percent chance of winning the White House in 2008. Obviously, campaigns change things, but if all things remain equal, the Democrats clearly have the advantage going into next year’s presidential election cycle.
Now, I would pick any major GOP candidate over any major Democratic candidate, but if I had to live under a Democrat as commander in chief, here is how I would rank my preference of the current donkey candidates:
1. Sen. Hillary Clinton. Hillary is like the devil incarnate to many conservative Republicans, and I have to admit, I don’t like the prospect of another Clinton presidency. However, sometimes we have to remember who our enemies are. Some lefties like to think President Bush is the real enemy. Some righties like to think Hillary is the real enemy. Both are wrong. Hillary has proven that she can be hawkish if need be, more so than the other Democrats. More than any of the other Democrat candidates, I think Hillary will govern toward the political center, especially on foreign policy.
Conventional wisdom suggests that Hillary is the brains behind the Bill / Hillary operation. However, I’m inclined to agree with commentator Michelle Malkin, who argues that Bill has far more political smarts than Hillary. Unfortunately, this is starting to show as Hillary squanders her lead to Sen. Barack Obama.
2. Sen. Joe Biden. My biggest criticism of Democrats on Iraq is that their only alternative to the Bush plan is defeat. Well, Biden actually has a plan for Iraq that isn’t defeat. He wants to split Iraq up into three states: One for Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis. More so than the pretty boy one-two punch of Sen. Barack Obama and former Sen. John “ $ 400 haircut” Edwards, Biden has substance and intellect, and is less likely to be influenced by quickly changing opinion polls.
3. Gov. Bill Richardson. The New Mexico governor has both foreign and domestic policy experience and in some ways is a (Bill) Clintonite. I don’t think Richardson would do anything too radical as president.
4. Sen. Barack Obama. Obama is a showman who talks a nice talk, but hides a dangerously liberal voting record in the Senate. (His record is far to the left of Hillary’s. ) In many ways, Obama is an unknown quantity, which means we’re not sure what we get if we hire him for the top job. Obama’s plan for Iraq is a non-plan. He naively thinks that neighboring states — such as rivals Saudi Arabia and Iran, and terror supporting states such as Syria — will really work in the interest of the Iraqi people and not increasing their own regional power.
5. Sen. John Edwards. I hate to say it, but the man is an empty suit. Okay, I don’t hate to say it. He looks good and is articulate, but he brings nothing to the table, except six unremarkable years of Senate experience. On the campaign trail in 2004, Edwards showed that he didn’t even have enough leadership potential to carry his own state, which tells me his election to the Senate was a fluke. Edwards is only a player because he is good at pouring honey down the ears of the left-wing base that powers the Democrat primaries. This trial lawyer should be doing dandruff shampoo TV commercials for Head and Shoulders, not running for president.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Huckabee gets good reviews on debate performance
I didn't get to see the debate... the Web stream wasn't working, but I did have to make an emergency trip to the hospital (baby issue -- don't worry, mother and baby are fine), and I saw some of the rerun on MSNBC. I thought Huckabee did well, even though Matthews (who I can't stand) kept throwing ALL the questions to an orange-faced Romney. Here is what people said about Huckabee at other Blogs...
JIM GERAGHTY, National Review
Huckabee impressed me, he might be the guy jumping up to the middle tier. Polished, professional – something reassuring about him. I guess he didn't seem to be straining to appeal to the audience. Like a rookie who doesn't spike the football when he scores a touchdown, he acts like he's done it before. (I'm full of football metaphors tonight, must be a draft-day hangover.)
http://hillaryspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmU5ZGZkODZmNTllMzE5NDE4ZDQ0N2Q4ZjE0ZGMxYzU=
MARC AMBINDER, National Journal
The candidates touched on Romney’s religion, indirectly. Mike Huckabee, responding to Mitt Romney’s contention that the content of his faith is not relevant to his political life, tried to clarify: “I’ve said in general. When a person says my faith doesn’t affect my decision-making, I would say that the person is saying their faith is not significant to affect their decision process.”
PEGGY NOONAN (Wall Street Journal)
There were criticisms of the administration's handling of Iraq, with the first and strongest coming from Mr. McCain. Mike Huckabee had the most spirited explanation. The administration listened to "civilians in silk ties" rather than generals "with mud and blood on their boots."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110010023
HEADINGRIGHT.com, some nicer comments (http://headingright.com/)
From what I see, only a couple of people here look like Presidents, as Rick said, maybe three. Mitt Romney, Jim Gilmore, and I would give the third slot as a toss-up between Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani. I think he improved after the abortion question. Hands down, Romney did himself the most good, and maybe we can see Huckabee and Gilmore break out from the second tier. (EDWARD)
(There are a lot of positive Huckabee comments out here.)
The National Review guys really liked Huckabee (http://corner.nationalreview.com/)
PETER ROBINSON (National Review)
I'd started typing a post on Huckabee when I saw that JPod had beat me to it. But here's what I wanted to say: Only one man in this debate so far has really helped himself: Mike Huckabee. Relaxed and funny—he got off the only really funny line when they were all asked whether they'd amend the constitution to let Schwarzenegger run for president—Huckabee is also articulate and determined. Giuliani is proving fascinating, but not in an altogether reassuring way. But Huckabee? This guy is coming across as likeable, smart, and maybe even up to the job.
JOHN PODHORETZ (National Review)
Mike Huckabee...is really terrific. It's hard to know whether a debate watched only by a few million people can really launch someone, but I'd say halfway through that he is far and away the most likable and eloquent candidate on that stage.
KATHYRN LOPEZ (National Review)
But in this debate: Yes, I think you come away liking Huckabee.
HUGHHEWITT, Townhall.com, some not so nice comments...
Mike Huckabee – I look at this guy and wonder where he ever got the notion that he should be president. Even more than the Cranks (see below), his presence on the stage bothered me. Does this guy have anything interesting or original to say? Has he ever?
JIM GERAGHTY, National Review
Huckabee impressed me, he might be the guy jumping up to the middle tier. Polished, professional – something reassuring about him. I guess he didn't seem to be straining to appeal to the audience. Like a rookie who doesn't spike the football when he scores a touchdown, he acts like he's done it before. (I'm full of football metaphors tonight, must be a draft-day hangover.)
http://hillaryspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmU5ZGZkODZmNTllMzE5NDE4ZDQ0N2Q4ZjE0ZGMxYzU=
MARC AMBINDER, National Journal
The candidates touched on Romney’s religion, indirectly. Mike Huckabee, responding to Mitt Romney’s contention that the content of his faith is not relevant to his political life, tried to clarify: “I’ve said in general. When a person says my faith doesn’t affect my decision-making, I would say that the person is saying their faith is not significant to affect their decision process.”
PEGGY NOONAN (Wall Street Journal)
There were criticisms of the administration's handling of Iraq, with the first and strongest coming from Mr. McCain. Mike Huckabee had the most spirited explanation. The administration listened to "civilians in silk ties" rather than generals "with mud and blood on their boots."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110010023
HEADINGRIGHT.com, some nicer comments (http://headingright.com/)
From what I see, only a couple of people here look like Presidents, as Rick said, maybe three. Mitt Romney, Jim Gilmore, and I would give the third slot as a toss-up between Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani. I think he improved after the abortion question. Hands down, Romney did himself the most good, and maybe we can see Huckabee and Gilmore break out from the second tier. (EDWARD)
(There are a lot of positive Huckabee comments out here.)
The National Review guys really liked Huckabee (http://corner.nationalreview.com/)
PETER ROBINSON (National Review)
I'd started typing a post on Huckabee when I saw that JPod had beat me to it. But here's what I wanted to say: Only one man in this debate so far has really helped himself: Mike Huckabee. Relaxed and funny—he got off the only really funny line when they were all asked whether they'd amend the constitution to let Schwarzenegger run for president—Huckabee is also articulate and determined. Giuliani is proving fascinating, but not in an altogether reassuring way. But Huckabee? This guy is coming across as likeable, smart, and maybe even up to the job.
JOHN PODHORETZ (National Review)
Mike Huckabee...is really terrific. It's hard to know whether a debate watched only by a few million people can really launch someone, but I'd say halfway through that he is far and away the most likable and eloquent candidate on that stage.
KATHYRN LOPEZ (National Review)
But in this debate: Yes, I think you come away liking Huckabee.
HUGHHEWITT, Townhall.com, some not so nice comments...
Mike Huckabee – I look at this guy and wonder where he ever got the notion that he should be president. Even more than the Cranks (see below), his presence on the stage bothered me. Does this guy have anything interesting or original to say? Has he ever?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
