College Democrats | University of Wisconsin - Madison

Saturday, January 05, 2008

New Hampshire ABC/Facebook debates
It's Saturday night in Holmen, Wisconsin.... to keep me entertained I just watched the double-header Republican and Democrat New Hampshire debates. What it all boiled down to: Big Bad Government vs. Change and Secure the Borders the Muslims are Coming! vs. Secure the American Dream.

My picks for the winners -
Republicans: Gov. Mitt Romney. Although largely by power of elimination and some votes from Wyoming. Romney came across as the nice guy getting needled by Sen. McCain and the rest on the flip-flopping charge that really didn't seem to stick tonight (to the average viewer). Plus, after his showing in Iowa, Gov. Huckabee didn't impress as was necessary to court New Hampshire voters. He had the chance to show that he was electable beyond Iowa, and he blew it by not defining his positions more and just sitting quietly as a spectator. Mayor Giuliani... well, to borrow from Sen. Biden, his sentences contained a subject, a verb, and 9/11... the Islamic terrorist threat...and 9/11 again...radical Islamic jihad...and (in case you missed it) 9/11. And Ron Paul, although sounding quite intelligible and refraining from mentioning home schooling (though I was waiting for it when he said education and schools), was treated as a joke by the other 5 candidates on the stage.

Democrats: Gov. Bill Richardson. His eloquence and his reiteration that he is a Governor with executive experience stood out tonight amidst the three-way catfight. He rose above the fray and gained a lot of publicity and was able to clearly make his case. Senator Clinton gained points in toughness, and Senators Obama and Edwards apparently gained a friendship. If for no other reason, Richardson won because he was able to reach thousands of voters that may not have otherwise heard of him or heard about his policies. Senators Obama, Edwards, and Clinton already had that exposure, and a lot of voters already have their conceptions about them. But Richardson I think had the chance tonight - and took full advantage of it - to introduce himself to a larger crowd. The question as always is Will it convert into votes on Tuesday?


My summary of the Republican debate (the only direct quotes are actually in quotes):
  • America is the greatest country in the world. Our military is the strongest in the world. Islamo-fascism will kill us all. America! Fuck yeah! God Bless the USA.
    (I could stop here, and that would have effectively summarized the whole Republican debate...)
  • Ron Paul is there! I feel sorry for Rep. Kucinich that he wasn't invited to the Democratic debate but this newcomer and fellow renegade got himself invited to the Republican debate. I guess winning the MySpace primary really did mean something for Paul.
  • The question of "running on or running away from" Bush foreign policy.
    • Rumsfeld gets a beating from all sides (Huckabee: don't let the politicians make the decisions).
    • Radical Islam, Islamic jihad, and Islamo-fascism are buzzwords that are meant to strike fear (and hatred) in the hearts of the voters - and after repeating them enough like the candidates did tonight, the message does get through
    • Giuliani: the Patriot Act and electronic surveillance is "very, very good" AND we should increase the size of the military immediately (smell that? ah the draft cards are burning)
    • Some embrace the Bush Doctrine of pre-emption. Romney defends him, and McCain gives him credit for his oh-so-great leadership.
    • McCain: "America is not safe, America is safer."
    • Ron Paul: They "don't attack us because we're free and prosperous" but because we invade their country. I was surprised that the other candidates laughed at this and so vehemently opposed this reasoning.
    • Fred Thompson: "We should only go in where we should and where we are able to." Uhhhh thanks for that brilliant insight. You really cleared up things for me.
    • Huckabee (the candidate that has openly distanced himself from President Bush): He supports the President but his [Bush's] policy has problems. Then, Gov. Huckabee, do you support him because golly gee he's a nice guy?
    • Huckabee: "I'm not running for George Bush's third term."
    • Romney and Huckabee try to one up each other on the history lesson about Sayyid Qatb by pulling random dates out of their heads. Ok, so you're smarter than the current President. Congratulations.
  • Asked about the constancy of their principles:
    • McCain: I am a veteran.
    • Romney: Family values. America is great. At the "heart of our strength is the family." Moms and dads (but don't even think about two mommies or two daddies!).
    • Giuliani: Ronald Reagan. I laid out my 12 commitments. End illegal immigration. Appoint strict constructionist judges.
    • [Charlie Gibson, the moderater, goes around and points out how each of them has waffled on issues...except Paul who just switched parties]
    • Giuliani: But wait! Ronald Reagan!
    • Huckabee: "...the simple answer for me is all the way back to the document that gave us birth. And it goes like this: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, these being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That we are created equal." Really, Mike? Is that how the Declaration goes? Maybe you haven't distanced yourself from our current President enough...
    • Thompson tries to one-up Huckabee with a lesson on the 9th and 10th Amendments. Really, guys, if you invested in our public schools a bit we wouldn't need you teaching us civics on TV.
  • Healthcare - why can't we afford insurance for everybody?
    • Private insurance is good, socialized medicine is bad.
    • McCain: "problem isn't quality - it's inflation."
    • Romney stands by his Massachusetts plan.
    • Paul: don't print any more money!
    • Thompson: never going to achieve total coverage
    • Romney likes mandates...but only his kind
    • Giuliani: Health Savings Accounts
    • McCain attacks Big Pharma (and wants reimportation of drugs from Canada)
    • Romney defends Big Pharma
  • Illegal immigration
    • We like legals, we swear we do.
    • McCain: "God's children" and we need biometric documents to keep track of everyone
    • How many times can you mention that you are painting this as a national security issue?
    • Romney: id card of some sort
    • Giuliani: Build a fence, build a technological fence. Tamperproof ID card. We "can't throw out 12 million people" so focus on those who have committed crimes.
    • Y'all have to read and write and speak English good now, ya hear?
    • Romney: get in line -- outside the country
    • Giuliani: Ronald Reagan!
    • Thompson defines amnesty as being rewarded for your illegal behavior in any way and advocates "enforcement by attrition."
    • Huckabee: The "government didn't escort them over the border in the first place, so the government doesn't have to take them back."
    • Paul: The tamperproof ID opens the door for a national ID card - bad idea.
  • What don't you like about Barack Obama?
    • Change is good, and Obama is an inspiring figure (they all agree on that).
    • Romney: Washington is broken. I've lived the change.
    • Thompson: He's adopted the position of every major liberal interest group (painting Obama as extreme left-wing).
    • McCain: Dealing with radical Islamic extremists requires "a lot of knowledge, a lot of experience, and a lot of background."
    • Giuliani: Obama wants a "precipitous withdrawal in Iraq."
    • Huckabee: Welllll, the 2nd Amendment, sanctity of life, same-sex marriage
    • Paul: Young people like us. But I don't like his welfare state. And c'mon, Obama's not going to talk about getting rid of the income tax. But I will! Free markets!
  • Gas prices are high. Duh.
    • Paul: Gold standard would have fixed everything.
    • McCain: Alternative energy good, greenhouse gas bad.
    • Thompson: Cleaner coal and tap into the oil reserves in the US (aka ANWR).
    • Giuliani: We need to think about "energy independence on the scale of putting a man on the moon."
    • Huckabee: It is possible to achieve energy independence in 10 years.
    • Romney: No, it's not. But it's possible to be "on track" to get there. This is our "highest domestic economic priority."

My summary of the Democratic debate (the only direct quotes are actually in quotes) (Apologies for incompleteness...I got so caught up in listening I forgot to take notes sometimes):
  • Nuclear terrorism/Osama bin Laden/national security
    • Obama: We should go into western Pakistan without the agreement of the Pakistani government if necessary. Al Qaeda is stronger now than it has been at any point since 2001.
    • Edwards: Go get Osama. We need to deal with nuclear nonproliferation in the long term. Musharraf is a radical, and we need to rid the world of nuclear weapons.
    • Richardson: Diplomacy comes first in any foreign policy situation. We would ask Musharraf to step aside using "leverage" and a "high-level envoy." We act when we have real and actionable intelligence and the leader aka Musharraf is incapable.
    • Clinton: We need more NATO troops training the Afghan army. We have to be careful not to inflame the Pakistan/India conflict. Musharraf must share the security responsibility of the nukes. This is the "forgotten front line of the war on terrorism."
  • What if a nuclear weapon hits a US city?
    • Edwards: Find out who's responsible and go after them. And stop them. But we must be strong and calm.
    • Obama: This is our most significant foreign policy issue. We must rebuild the nuclear nonproliferation treaty.
    • Clinton: "There is no safe haven" for "state-less terrorists."
    • Richardson: "Transnational challenges requires international cooperation."
  • Concept of change.
    • Clinton: We're all advocating for change.
    • Edwards: Obama and I are "powerful voices for change." The "forces of status quo" are attacking us.
    • Clinton: "Making change is not about what you believe; it's about results." "I'm running on 35 years of change."
    • Richardson: I've been in "hostage negotiations that are a lot more civil than this." "Is experience kinda a leper?"
    • Edwards: We have to "fight for the future of the middle class." Costco and AT&T are good corporations.
    • Obama: The "American Dream is slipping away."
  • Has the surge in Iraq worked?
    • Clinton: It was designed to create time for the Iraqi government to fix itself, but there has been "no political action. They're not willing to do what they need to do."
    • Richardson: There is "no military solution." There is "only a political solution."
    • Obama: "Two years later, we're back where we started two years ago." We must be "as careful getting out as we were careless getting in."
    • Edwards: The President must consult the uniformed advisors.
    • Richardson: As Governor, I'm sick of flying flags at half-mast.
  • Likeability.
    • Clinton: "Well that hurts my feelings." [being called not really likeable]
    • Obama: "You're likeable enough.
  • Responding to Republican attack on Obama.
    • Obama: I was watching football. But seriously, they'd do that to any Democrat.
  • Is relative youth a detriment?
    • Richardson. I'm the only one who has balanced a budget. I've lowered taxes, improved education, insured 12 million children. I'm the only one who has negotiated with foreign governments. "Both parties have been failures in dealing with energy policy." We need American people to sacrifice a bit. I'm glad Al Gore stayed out of the race. JFK JFK JFK!
    • Edwards: I'm the son of a millworker. I don't take money from lobbyists or special interest PACs. I'll fight for the middle class. I'm the son of a millworker. Health insurance companies killed Natalie Sarkisyan. I'm the son of a millworker. Where is their voice in this democracy?
    • Obama: Bet on the American people. They're ready for change. I prohibited lobbyists from buying meals from Congress... but there's something about standing up and sitting down that confuses you, Charlie Gibson.
    • Clinton: "Reality break." I'm going to be the buzzkill for this session of warm-fuzzies and talk about how "words are not action" even though they are "beautifully presented and passionately felt." We need to "translate talk into action and feeling into reality."
    • Clinton follows the footsteps of Gerald Cox and his favorite word tendentious and pulls out "excoriated" to describe what Edwards and Obama did to the special interests.
    • Clinton: Bill Clinton rocked. "Change is hard, but change is possible."
    • Edwards: "Entrenched interests are literally stealing our children's future."
    • Obama: America is hungry, "hungry for something different." "Yes we can."
    • Richardson: "You guys and the President get nothing done" and the burden is on us Governors. I'm sick of Washington bickering - we need bipartisanship.
    • Edwards: It is the responsibility of the President to unite. I'm going to "fight FOR the American people" because "I have been in the trenches."
  • Global warming and the carbon tax.
    • Richardson: Carbon tax is a bad idea because it is not a mandate. Cap-and-trade is the way to go.
    • Obama. Cap-and-trade, I agree. We must shield the consumer from the cost, though. Change your lightbulbs and insulate your homes, everybody!
    • Clinton: The economy is slipping towards a recession. The energy issue will jumpstart economic efficiency.
  • The fate of the Bush tax cuts
    • Clinton: The middle class will get the "tax relief they deserve." Don't cut the taxes on the wealthy.
    • Edwards: We have to help the homeless veterans and help people find jobs. The "trade and tax policy is bleeding American jobs." I would know - I'm the son of a millworker.
    • Obama: We must close tax loopholes and offer specific tax relief immediately. It's a change.
    • Richardson: We need a balanced budget and line item veto authority for the President. And I want to talk about education! We must improve schools, pay our teachers better, end NCLB, emphasize the arts, and fund science and math education.
  • What do you wish you hadn't said in the debates so far? What would you take back if you could?
    • Clinton: We're all great candidates, and the Democrats are in such contrast to the Republicans.
    • Richardson: "I was asked who my favorite Supreme Court justice was, and I said, dead or alive? ...I should have stuck to the alive because I then said, "Whizzer" White, because I idolize John F. Kennedy and I figured if he appointed "Whizzer" White, this was a great Supreme Court justice. Well then I find out that "Whizzer" White was against Roe versus Wade, against civil rights. You know, so that's -- that wasn't a good one."
    • Edwards: "I made the horrendous mistake of teasing Hillary about her jacket. And I want her to know I think you look terrific tonight."
    • Obama: "Here's an area where I agree with Hillary." We need to be "ending the politics of fear."

All four of the Democratic candidates would do a great job as President. We're lucky we have such a great field... but I guess unlucky in that we have to pick just one. But, if tonight's debates were any indication, that one Democrat will be able to crush any of those six Republicans in November.

Labels: , ,

posted by Suchita Shah at 9:55 PM

10 Comments:

Blogger Critical Badger said...

I thought Edwards was the big winner. Hardly ever on defense. Stayed on message. Very passionate. Was able to harp on his narrative without literally any criticism.

Richardson was like your old grandpa; you love him and respect the guy, but realize he's not going to ever win the 4th purple heart he always dreamed about at Iwa Jima because his time had passed.

January 06, 2008 12:28 AM  

Blogger David Lapidus said...

That wasn't biased at all =P...

January 06, 2008 1:44 AM  

Blogger Ryan Greenfield said...

I agree with critical badger. Too bad it almost doesn't matter. Edwards would have to eat a live baby to attract any media attention away from Clinton and Obama.

January 06, 2008 1:44 AM  

Blogger Oliver Kiefer said...

he sounded pretty fiery in iowa, i wouldn't put it passed him...

January 06, 2008 2:47 AM  

Blogger David Lapidus said...

Don't get me wrong, there are a ton of problems with the US right now and a lot of people are having it pretty bad, but Edwards often makes it seem like the US is in 1931 and not 2008.

Nevertheless, I thought he did well in the Dem debate (as did Richardson), I agree with ya CB and Ryan, but he is still a doomed candidate as the nomination goes in my opinion for a variety of reasons (as is Richardson).

There is a good argument for either of them being VP choices for an Obama or Clinton general election candidacy, however.

Suchita, thanks for posting your analysis btw, there is a lot of stuff on your mind a more conservative person on national issues, like me, didn't pay as much attention to in either of the debates. My bias joke was directed at your treatment of GOPers hehe (I loved the Ron Paul home schooling crack btw).

January 06, 2008 2:51 AM  

Blogger Suchita Shah said...

But what did it mean for Edwards to stay on message? He said the same thing he's been saying since the 04 elections: fight for the middle class and restore the American dream. That's all great, and I agree that we need to do that, but I don't think he utilized the debate to it's fullest potential. I don't think he took enough advantage of his 2nd place finish in Iowa.

And that's why I say Richardson won. He had nothing to lose and a lot to gain, and he definitely gained something. The average viewer (my parents) said, Why haven't I ever heard of this guy? He sounds so reasonable and serious and knows what he's talking about.

I think we may be differing in the criteria we use to judge what is considered "winning."

January 06, 2008 9:36 AM  

Anonymous erik paulson said...

I hate listening to Richardson in a debate because he never answers a question. Instead, he lists off a bunch of facts, some of which may be relevant but most of them usually aren't, and then ends with something hokey. I've tried that approach on exam questions where I don't actually know the answer, but I know something about the subjects in the question, so I throw everything out there and hope the grader doesn't notice I didn't answer the question.

This debate made me want to see an Obama/Edwards ticket. Dick Cheney reinvented the VP job as a passionate force for evil directly influencing the President and the rest of the government. Cheney made it the norm for the VP to go over the top. Imagine the 2008 edition of John Edwards with the weight of the Vice Presidency behind him, with a fiery passion for dismantling the Two Americas instead of advocating for torture.

I really liked this debate format. I thought the answers might have be the most informative of all the debates. I think part of that might have been the questioning. I thought Charlie Gibson pushed it, sometimes trying to be the 5th candidate at times (and not one I'd vote for), but it seemed to produce better answers. Certainly better than Tim Russert's crap questions that sounded like he was auditioning for a writing gig on '24'

This is maybe cheesy, but my favorite moment was the halftime show when both the Republicans and Democrats were on stage.

January 06, 2008 10:03 AM  

Blogger David Lapidus said...

"But what did it mean for Edwards to stay on message? He said the same thing he's been saying since the 04 elections: fight for the middle class and restore the American dream. That's all great, and I agree that we need to do that, but I don't think he utilized the debate to it's fullest potential. I don't think he took enough advantage of his 2nd place finish in Iowa.

And that's why I say Richardson won. He had nothing to lose and a lot to gain, and he definitely gained something. The average viewer (my parents) said, Why haven't I ever heard of this guy? He sounds so reasonable and serious and knows what he's talking about.

I think we may be differing in the criteria we use to judge what is considered "winning.""

Very good point. If we go by the expectations game criteria for winning Richardson won hands down. If we go by the who looked the best overall criteria, Edwards and Richardson did well. If we go by the how will this mean jack shat criteria Obama and Clinton won since Richardson and Edwards didn't deliver any knockout blows to the favorites (also it is debatable if enough undecideds were even watching the debate).

January 06, 2008 12:18 PM  

Blogger David Lapidus said...

Erik, that is often Richardson's style of rhetoric yes. List everything I know about the topic, whether it is relevant or not, then answer the question. Maybe this is why he frequently runs out of time in debates?

The format the other day was far better than any of the previous debates I'd say (agree with there). Also, the "half time" show was fun yeah hehe.

January 06, 2008 12:22 PM  

Blogger Suchita Shah said...

Erik Paulson, welcome back!

The debate format was nice, especially since it gave the candidates the chance to actually question each other... making it more of an actual debate versus a monologue.

January 06, 2008 8:36 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

9/3/06 - 9/10/06 9/10/06 - 9/17/06 9/17/06 - 9/24/06 9/24/06 - 10/1/06 10/1/06 - 10/8/06 10/8/06 - 10/15/06 10/15/06 - 10/22/06 10/22/06 - 10/29/06 10/29/06 - 11/5/06 11/5/06 - 11/12/06 11/12/06 - 11/19/06 11/19/06 - 11/26/06 11/26/06 - 12/3/06 12/3/06 - 12/10/06 12/10/06 - 12/17/06 12/17/06 - 12/24/06 12/24/06 - 12/31/06 12/31/06 - 1/7/07 1/7/07 - 1/14/07 1/14/07 - 1/21/07 1/21/07 - 1/28/07 1/28/07 - 2/4/07 2/4/07 - 2/11/07 2/11/07 - 2/18/07 2/18/07 - 2/25/07 2/25/07 - 3/4/07 3/4/07 - 3/11/07 3/18/07 - 3/25/07 3/25/07 - 4/1/07 4/1/07 - 4/8/07 4/8/07 - 4/15/07 4/15/07 - 4/22/07 4/22/07 - 4/29/07 4/29/07 - 5/6/07 5/6/07 - 5/13/07 5/13/07 - 5/20/07 5/20/07 - 5/27/07 5/27/07 - 6/3/07 6/3/07 - 6/10/07 6/10/07 - 6/17/07 6/17/07 - 6/24/07 6/24/07 - 7/1/07 7/1/07 - 7/8/07 7/8/07 - 7/15/07 7/15/07 - 7/22/07 7/22/07 - 7/29/07 7/29/07 - 8/5/07 8/5/07 - 8/12/07 8/12/07 - 8/19/07 8/19/07 - 8/26/07 8/26/07 - 9/2/07 9/2/07 - 9/9/07 9/9/07 - 9/16/07 9/16/07 - 9/23/07 9/23/07 - 9/30/07 9/30/07 - 10/7/07 10/7/07 - 10/14/07 10/14/07 - 10/21/07 10/21/07 - 10/28/07 10/28/07 - 11/4/07 11/4/07 - 11/11/07 11/11/07 - 11/18/07 11/18/07 - 11/25/07 11/25/07 - 12/2/07 12/2/07 - 12/9/07 12/9/07 - 12/16/07 12/16/07 - 12/23/07 12/23/07 - 12/30/07 12/30/07 - 1/6/08 1/6/08 - 1/13/08 1/13/08 - 1/20/08 1/20/08 - 1/27/08 1/27/08 - 2/3/08 2/3/08 - 2/10/08 2/10/08 - 2/17/08 2/17/08 - 2/24/08 2/24/08 - 3/2/08 3/2/08 - 3/9/08 3/9/08 - 3/16/08 3/16/08 - 3/23/08 3/23/08 - 3/30/08 3/30/08 - 4/6/08 4/6/08 - 4/13/08 4/13/08 - 4/20/08 4/20/08 - 4/27/08 4/27/08 - 5/4/08 5/4/08 - 5/11/08 5/11/08 - 5/18/08 5/18/08 - 5/25/08 5/25/08 - 6/1/08 6/1/08 - 6/8/08 6/8/08 - 6/15/08 6/15/08 - 6/22/08 6/22/08 - 6/29/08 6/29/08 - 7/6/08 7/6/08 - 7/13/08 7/13/08 - 7/20/08 7/20/08 - 7/27/08 7/27/08 - 8/3/08 8/3/08 - 8/10/08 8/17/08 - 8/24/08 8/24/08 - 8/31/08 8/31/08 - 9/7/08 9/7/08 - 9/14/08 9/14/08 - 9/21/08 9/21/08 - 9/28/08 9/28/08 - 10/5/08 10/12/08 - 10/19/08 11/30/08 - 12/7/08

 Subscribe in a reader   Download the blog feed Dashboard Widget


The views and opinions expressed in this blog do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the UW-Madison College Democrats. They are the views of their authors. Postings by individual board members to not necessarily represent a consensus opinion of the board or organization.