2008 Update: 3rd GOP Debate - Thompson's Shadow and Romney's Performance

Wolfy Blitzer looks appeared as an annoying little boy with the men on stage.

First question:

"Knowing what you know now, would you have voted differently on the Iraq war resolution?"

Come on. Of all the repetitive questions posed today, this is as inherently beta sigma as any. Romney, who's winning the debate, essentially told Blitzer, well, that he was retarded.

(Paraphrased): "I believe that, given what we knew at the time, the bi-partisan support for the war was reasonable, and we had a successful campaign to overthrow the Hussein regime. We had poor strategy after that, we weren't realistic enough, and we've struggled. Today, we need to look forward with hope and strategy to win. We do that by asserting Iraqi control over-"

Blitzer: (paraphrased) "Mr. Governor, you refuse to answer my question, which was given what you know now, would you support the war?"

Romney: (paraphrased, but not much) ":shakes head: I did answer that question as rationally as a sane person would expect. That's a non sequitor-- a null sac, we look forward today."

Same with all the other candidates.

It's preposterous that there was another evolution question, but Gov. Huckabee gave an incredibly eloquent response to it.

Other asinine questions, or poorly worded ones:

"Is science wrong on global warming?" Um. No one says "science is wrong." It's about the interpretation and scientific belief.
"Would you pardon Scooter Libby."
"Did you read the IAGS Briefing #something before the Iraq war?" Oooh, yes, I remember that! It was paper number 234235 on my desk! I read it thoroughly. Kudos to secondary assistant director to legislative coordinator at CIA, very good.

So, at halftime: Less than 15% of the questions were remotely pertinent. The Town Hall portion was better.

Romney winning.
McCain up. his defense of McCain/Kennedy immigration was excellent, drawing on the patriotism of Hispanic soldiers. I like him more, I'd campaign for him now.
Gilmore (oddly) up.
Paul probably up (simply because so many dumb questions were just for him)
Huckabee steady. He should be killing it in the debates, but he seemed flustered a couple of times, with technical difficulties and such.
Tancredo steady.
Giuliani down.
Thompson (T.) down.
Brownback down.
Wolfy Blitzer looks like an annoying little boy with the men on stage.

First question:

"Knowing what you know now, would you have voted differently on the Iraq war resolution?"

Come on. Of all the repetitive questions posed today, this is as inherently beta sigma as any. Romney, who's winning the debate, essentially told Blitzer, well, that he was retarded.

(Paraphrased): "I believe that, given what we knew at the time, the bi-partisan support for the war was reasonable, and we had a successful campaign to overthrow the Hussein regime. We had poor strategy after that, we weren't realistic enough, and we've struggled. Today, we need to look forward with hope and strategy to win. We do that by asserting Iraqi control over-"

Blitzer: (paraphrased) "Mr. Governor, you refuse to answer my question, which was given what you know now, would you support the war?"

Romney: (paraphrased, but not much) ":shakes head: I did answer that question as rationally as a sane person would expect. That's a non sequitor-- a null sac, we look forward today."

Same with all the other candidates.

It's preposterous that there was another evolution question, but Gov. Huckabee gave an incredibly eloquent response to it.

Other asinine questions, or poorly worded ones:

"Is science wrong on global warming?" Um. No one says "science is wrong." It's about the interpretation and scientific belief.
"Would you pardon Scooter Libby."
"Did you read the IAGS Briefing #something before the Iraq war?" Oooh, yes, I remember that! It was paper number 234235 on my desk! I read it thoroughly. Kudos to secondary assistant director to legislative coordinator at CIA, very good.

So, at halftime: Less than 15% of the questions are remotely pertinent. Absolutely horrible.

Romney won.
McCain up. his defense of McCain/Kennedy immigration was excellent. I like him more, I'd campaign for him now.
Gilmore (oddly) up.

Huckabee steady. He should be killing it in the debates, but he seemed flustered a couple of times, with technical difficulties and such.
Paul probably steady (simply because so many dumb questions were just for him).
Giuliani steady. The lightening strike was incredibly good Providence for him.
Tancredo down.
Thompson (T.) down. What an irritating name confusion
Brownback down. You're rather inclined to forget about him. That's very Presidential.
Finally, Hunter down. I don't know why Mike Reagan and Ann Coulter are saying he's the conservative candidate. He's anti-free trade, has poor rhetorical engagement, and no fund raising. Anyhow, as The Politico's Roger Simon points out, he was quite rude in assaulting the front-runners at the very end of the debate.


Huckabee's answer to what the greatest moral threat today is was excellent. Paul's ranting against any form of pre-emptive strikes was depressing.

Fred Thompson won the debate. He wasn't there. But immediately after the debate he had an exclusive twenty minute interview with Sean Hannity on Hannity & Colmes. No tough questions, no competition, just a softie conversation with Hannity about the debate, politics, conservatism, life, love, and other mysteries.

Accordingly, some polls now have Thompson narrowly in second place. So much for a candidate who isn't running. He's assembled an excellent team of advisers, including (to my delight) a fabulous economist to be his economic adviser, Lawrence B. Lindsey. Lindsey understands economics, he once worked for the Council of Economic Advisers under Reagan then served on the Council for Bush 41, he's a former assistant professor at Harvard, and current Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

One potential high note to the candidates is the reversal in Gingrich's tone. He now says odds are 4-to-1 that he will not run. This is a complete reversal of his previous indications that he likely would. It also bolsters the prospects of other "conservative alternative" candidates, most significantly Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, and Mitt Romney. To digress, I am indeed a Thompson supporter, but I fear too much stock is placed in one aspect of his candidacy. He's not an amazing orator. He will perform Giuliani-caliber in the debates when it comes to delivery and engagement, expect him to come in third behind Romney and Huckabee.

I could be surprised, though.

I hope I am.

I'm now a Frederalist. If you think that has anything to do with James Madison or John Jay, go read that statement again.

2008 Update: Searching for Reagan and... Thompson?

The Reaganite impact has been seen in the establishment of an ultimate idiom for national leadership. A man who can unite the party's vast internal ideological differences. Individualist lovers of liberty that make up the quasi-libertarian branch of conservatism (the "New Right"), the traditionalists of neoconservatism who long for the men who will opine to their cries for society bound by a transcendent order, and those "anti-communist" members of the party (whom today would be "anti-terrorism") who stand firm in the hawkish zeal to defend the homeland against those totalitarian forces of aggression who wish to see us dead. The battle for a balance between order and liberty drove wedges in the party for much of the 20th Century, yet Reagan was able to unite them under their common goals. Their Jeffersonian libertarian ideals that the "government which governs best governs least," and their neoconservative ideas that a strong military and national defense must be maintained to save the Western World and the Shining City on a Hill. This fusion of ideas, produced Reagan. The economic zeal of Milton Friedman, F.A. Hayek and George Stigler drawing from frustrated calls for return to sanity in The Road to Serfdom and Free to Choose. The staunch defense of the free world, aggressive, definitive, and imperative; laden with Churchillian and Lincoln poetic rhetoric. A defense inspired by the terrorizing tales of defected Soviet spy Whittaker Chambers in Witness. These factions of the party united to defend the natural and necessitated rights of men esteemed by Locke and Hobbes, the Burkean ordered liberty of society, the Hayekian and Chicago School ideas of free markets and monetarism, the fundamental values of Kirk and Milton, while preserving the individual autonomy of Bastiat-style classical liberals.

But is it even comprehensible that a GOP candidate in 2008 could unite the tory notions, drive away the gathering storm of neo-liberalism, and land a seat in the Oval Office?

The Reagan legacy has impacted many great leaders of our day. Names ring in the minds of his students: Quayle, Williams, Gingrich, Sowell, Meese, Kirkpatrick, Weinberger, Noonan, Bennett... McCain? Giuliani? The vacuum is opened.

Of the present field of candidates, for balance of ideology and electability I draw nearer to supporting Mitt Romney than anyone else. Charismatic, well-grounded, deep fund raising pockets, and understands liberty. He's lurched to the right in the past few years, but it seems more sincere than others, and could be in the same style that Reagan lurched right before running for President. His economic record in Massachusetts is impeccable, and his advocacy on other issues impressive. Yet, his lackluster support in comparison to Giuliani, and the prejudice from some of the Religious Right over Mormonism (however preposterous a gripe) still leaves a spot in the candidates. Sure, Brownback, Gilmore, and Huckabee are noble chaps. But $1.5 million or half a million in fund raising is going to get you no where.

A new factor is actor and former senator Fred Thompson. A relative latecomer, his window of opportunity for announcing may be short, yet as Bob Novak puts it, "many conservatives may embrace Thompson with a sigh of relief." The popular senator from Tennessee has had a strong limited-government record on virtually all major issues, and has sustained some of the limelight while starring on NBC's "Law and Order" and maintaining his PAC. A current fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, he's garnered a good deal of support from GOP base publications ranging from Human Events to Patriot Post to the Wall Street Journal.

His support is not universal, however. Pulitzer Prize winning conservative columnist George F. Will scoffs at the notion of a Reaganite Thompson. Mr. Will cites his age, lack of experience in a tightly contested campaign, and hypothetical lackluster energy. He also details, to my hearty agreement, discontent with Thompson's support of the reprehensible McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance Reform legislation. As of a March interview with Fox News Sunday's Chris Wallace, Thompson maintained his support of the freedom-suppressing measure. An additional area of concern is his 1995 vote against Health Savings Accounts (HSAs).

All other aspects of his prospective campaign may prove strong. A recent LA Times poll, according to Dick Morris, has Thompson at second place behind Giuliani, trumping McCain, Romney, Huckabee, and the undeclared Newt.

GIULIANI 29%

THOMPSON 15%

MC CAIN 12%

ROMNEY 8%

GINGRICH 7%

HUCKABEE 3%

If Gingrich feels Thompson represents the cause fully, there's a good chance he won't declare in September (his deciding point). Thompson would be a likely choice for many Gingrich supporters, while Huckabee will likely be forced out due to lack of competitive fund raising. Leaving the vote of those like me to be split between Romney and Thompson, either of whom I would be happy with. A true blue lover of liberty at the helm of the GOP ticket may be the only thing that can prevent a second Clinton White House. Thompson/Romney '08?

2008 Update: Slipping Big Three? - New Approval Ratings

The late February Presidential poll average shows my slightly preferred pick, Fmr. Gov. Romney (R-MA), sliding to fourth place, with Newt Gingrich (R-GA) in third. The spread:


RCP Average (02/19 - 02/28) Rudy: 36.6 McCain: 20.2 Mitt: 7.2 Newt: 10.8 Spread: Giuliani +16.4
The Democratic Congress' approval ratings haven't bounced any higher than Bush's, coming in a few points below his 36% approval at a 34% rate.

RCP Average

02/21 - 02/28

(A)34.0%

(D)52.3%

-18.3%

John Fund's weekly report to OpinionJournal claimed Romney nailed his Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) speech last weekend with a message "uniting fiscal, social, and defense conservatives." However, Giuliani also received a surprisingly positive response having his somewhat nervous speech (introduced by longtime conservative icon George F. Will) centered around conservative ideas from defense to school choice, but avoiding the issues of conflict (namely gun control and abortion).

I find myself ideologically aligned with Gingrich as much as any candidate, but electability remains a serious concern. I'm still waiting to see which of the conservative candidates--Romney, Gingrich, Huckabee (R-AR) or the extreme long-shots Brownback (R-KA) and Gilmore (R-VA)-- pulls ahead as the conservative front-runner. In his CPAC speech, Huckabee cracked the conference should be renamed the "Conservative Presidential Anxiety Conference" with a theme, "Dude, where's my candidate?"