As I watched the gaggle of Republican Presidential pretenders (for the most part – there are two who I could see with their hand on the bible taking the oath on the Capitol steps in January, 2009), I was struck by how truly bereft the GOP is of political talent at the national level.
The Governator seems hefty but, of course, can’t run because of that codicil in the Constitution that prevents Austrian-born body builders from becoming President. Still, there’s no doubting his talent for governance, having gone from novice to expert in just a matter of years while receiving high marks for many of his programs. And if a Republican is elected, they should absolutely find a place in their Administration to utilize Arnold’s considerable and varied talents.
But besides Arnold, who is there? Jeb? Puh-leese. After this election, I don’t want to see another Clinton or Bush as a candidate until Chelsea’s grandchild is eligible for office. This run of “power families” who have dominated American politics much of the last 50 years – the Kennedys, the Clintons, the Bush’s, – makes the United States look like a banana republic. Or worse, a debased aristocracy.
The whole point of inventing America was to create a place where it wasn’t supposed to matter who or what your father was, that you were judged on your own talents and merits. But given that these and other families like the Cuomo’s of New York, the Bayh’s of Indiana, the Boren’s of Oklahoma, the Ford’s of Tennessee, the Doles, the Gores, the Dodd’s, and the ever popular Rockefeller’s always seem to get one of their prodigies elected to high office, politics has become almost hereditary in some respects. At the very least, the scion of a well known political family has a huge leg up in any contest as far as money contacts and access to campaign expertise. It is unseemly in a republic for this to be so and I wish it weren’t.
Then again, I wish the talent on display last night would have approached the towering political figures who ran for President in 1980. That year, the Republican party fielded perhaps the most capable group of men ever to run for the presidency. There were two Presidents in Reagan and Bush. There was the 1996 Republican nominee Bob Dole. There was the larger than life, charismatic presence of former Democrat, former Texas Governor John Connally. There was the smooth inside the beltway Minority Leader of the Senate Howard Baker. There were two brilliant Congressmen in Phil Crane and John Anderson – either one would have made the pitiful group of small minded men who trudged on stage last night look like idiots.
Actually, a couple of them didn’t need any help in looking foolish. Tommy Thompson’s candidacy is over after answering a question about whether he would fire a gay person just for being gay in the affirmative. The crestfallen look on Thompson’s face after he was cornered into saying “yes” he would fire someone based on their sexual orientation showed he knew full well he had jumped the shark, screwed the pooch, and fallen off a cliff with that stupid, thoughtless answer.
Then there was Tom Tancredo and his problems with communication. He seemed to be speaking a foreign language at times so incoherent he sounded – an irony of great proportions given his opposition to foreigners entering America even legally.
Duncan Hunter will make a fine Secretary of Defense. President? Not so much.
Ron Paul took a wrong turn in 1952 and ended up transported to modern times. How many Republicans today know who Robert Taft was? How many Republicans care?
Mark my words: We will never, ever elect a President named “Huckabee.”
Sam Brownback is at least Vice Presidential material. His appeal to that part of the base who believe social issues are most important is undeniable and he would make a fine addition to a Romney or Guiliani ticket.
Jim Gilmore intrigues me. He comes off as something of a cold fish – a competent, passionless technocrat. But he is smooth, smart, and quick on his feet. I have a feeling that the GOP is going to look very closely at adding a southern face to the ticket if current adverse trends continue in that part of the country.
The so-called “Big Three” of McCain, Romney, and Guiliani pretty much played it safe. McCain started out poorly but came on strong in the second half of the debate. And I think the format harmed Guiliani who never seemed to get enough time to answer the questions directed at him fully.
Romney was probably the “winner” for the night. His response to questions about religion showed he had put a lot of thought (and practice) into how to answer critics who say a Mormon can’t be President. I have no doubt that he will be able to put that issue behind him eventually. He was less competent in answering questions about his flip flop on abortion. This problem will be more difficult to put behind him and will be exploited by his primary opponents as well as the Democratic nominee. It just doesn’t ring true because it isn’t. Romney has not had a consistent position on abortion and every one knows it. It might be nice if he acknowledged that fact and moved on.
Not an entirely depressing night but it’s no secret that the addition of Fred Thompson would have livened up the festivities. Most of my Heading Right colleagues believe that Fred ended up the big winner last night by not showing up. It’s hard to argue with that logic.
(To listen to the Heading Right Debate Roundtable wrap up from last night, go here.)
My overall impression was is this the best the Republicans can offer the country? Not only was the stage bereft of personality and warmth but there was a noticeable dearth of ideas. Part of the problem there was the format and those who hosted the debate; MSNBC and Politico. Compared to the Democratic debates, I thought the questions were hostile and inane (“Would Bill Clinton being back in the White House be a good thing?”). Interesting that we didn’t get a question at the Democratic debates like “Would it be a good thing to have a Mormon in the White House?” or some other equally stupid question. Chris Matthews gave us his best impression of a Democratic party hack while the post debate coverage featured that well known, fair minded, unbiased, journalist/speaker of truth to power/Diogenes wannabe, the Murrowesque Keith Olbermann.
And they say Fox News is too biased?
The country is changing before our eyes. As American is wont to do from time to time, we are re-inventing ourselves to answer the challenges of a new age. And while those men from 1980 who made this bunch look like little old ladies at a coffee klatch advanced a solid agenda of strength at home and abroad and freedom for all, this grouping of average Republicans seemed unable to string more than two coherent thoughts together in succession. And if history has taught us one thing, America waits for no man, no party in its rush to change. Those who don’t adapt are simply left behind while the country goes about the business of re-alignment.
At a time when the nation needs his clarity of purpose, Ronald Reagan was reduced to a ghost on that stage last night; his name invoked constantly, homage paid to his ideas, but the essence of the man and his sense of mission sorely lacking among the pretenders who would inherit his mantle. And with Bush a non-factor, the party at the moment is leaderless, rudderless, and without purpose – except to win elections. And as the Democrats proved in the 25 years prior to 2006, this is a recipe for disaster.
UPDATE
Some quickie reactions:
Michelle has a gigantic round up. Something for everyone.
Ed Morrissey (who did a fantastic job moderating our roundtable last night on BTR) says “It’s Romney.”
Erik at RedState says “It’s McCain…and Fred Thompson.”
Dean Barnett: Romney (natch!)
Powerline: McCain!
Sully: McCain.
Sister Toldjah: No winners. Format sucked. Ditto moderators. Re-ditto questions. She’s got the best liveblogging of the debate I’ve seen.
More later…
7:34 am
I didn’t watch – I’m glad I don’t have cable. I’ve read the reviews this morning, and come away with the impression that my prediction was correct – rather a waste of time.
Both parties seems to be filled with poseurs – the Republicans paying lip service to Reagan and the Democrats to Kennedy/Clinton – and all candidates are shifting to be on what they believe is the popular side of an issue.
I’m beginning to believe bin Laden was right – we are a bunch of weaklings with no moral compass.
7:47 am
Rick,
Congrats to all of you that were on the Heading Right Recap show last night on BlogTalk – I had to miss the debate so it was great to get all of views you folks shared last night – and yes, Cap’n Ed did an awesome job of herding you cats (okay, just kidding!).
My only complaint about the show was it was too brief! You shoulda had an hour!
I think the best part of the Heading Right recap was the fact that I did get a lot of the play-by-play WITHOUT having to deal with the inevitable nausea of listening to Chris Matthews.
Anyway, nice job – I enjoyed it.
8:13 am
Re: your comments on Ron Paul. It’s too bad most Republicans nowadays don’t know who Taft was. IMO we could use someone like him, specifically to repudiate the foolish ‘Bush Doctrine’.
8:27 am
[...] Rick Moran begrudgingly gives Mitt the win, but it took him 14 paragraphs to say it. No worries, Rick. We takes what we gets. [...]
9:13 am
FYI. From the New York Times Op-Ed section: Why Congress Must Support the “Surge”
The author said it better than I could though there are a few points I would tweak.
9:34 am
Web Reconnaissance for 05/04/2007…
A short recon of whatÂ’s out there that might draw your attention….
9:59 am
[...] The biggest battle in the debate on the Republican soundstage last night? Which of “the debaters” could say Ronald Reagan more often and most reverently? Did anybody have any ideas? Some were more evolved than others. When in doubt, say Reagan. When not in doubt, cite Reagan. When you don’t want to answer the question? Reagan. Somewhere in the midst of the Reaganfest, McCain grew older by the minute, Ron Paul provided comic relief simply by showing up. All of them seemed pained to mention the President everyone wants to succeed, but nobody much wants to call a failure. [...]
10:07 am
And the Answer Is . . ....
The biggest battle in the debate on the Republican soundstage last night? Which of “the debaters” could say Ronald Reagan more often and most reverently? Did anybody have any ideas? Some were more evolved than others. When in doubt,......
10:57 am
With the likes of Chris Mathews and Keith Olbermann running the debate, Fred Thompsom came out miles ahead by not being there.
Having said that, for the debate participants, the highlights for me were:
Mathews asked Romney this inane question, “What would you say to Roman Catholic leaders who would deny communion to those who support abortion rights?”
Romney’s answer “I don’t have anything to say to them. They can do whatever the heck they want!”
Best line of the night:
Question to Huckabee – “Grade the Iraq War.”
His response “I don’t give grades in the middle of the test!”
Dumbest line of the night:
Mathews question “What do you dislike most about America?”
The answer someone could have won the night with “Stupid self-righteous debate moderators like yourself!”
11:07 am
Yep. The fact that Robert Taft is a dusty old memory says it all about today’s Republicans.
11:19 am
[...] And, Rick Moran sums the entire two hours up in one paragraph: As I watched the gaggle of Republican Presidential pretenders (for the most part – there are two who I could see with their hand on the bible taking the oath on the Capitol steps in January, 2009), I was struck by how truly bereft the GOP is of political talent at the national level. [...]
11:31 am
[...] I’ll grant that none of the Republicans look particularly vote-worthy, but compared to what’s on the other side, they look like gems to me. For the best liveblogging of the Republican debate last night, see Sister Toldjah, for the best wrap-up see Rick Moran at the Rightwing Nuthouse. [...]
2:23 pm
I care who Robert Taft, Sr. was – he was my grandfather’s best friend and the last one worth a spit in that family! Me I’m inclining toward Fred Thompson. It would at least be an interesting contest with him eviscerating HRC at every turn in THAT VOICE!
3:03 pm
As an independent conservative/libertarian voter I could find myself voting for Thompson (who wasn’t there), Romney and Guiliani. The only way I’d vote for McCain is if he actually got the nominations since I can’t see Edwards/Osama Obama/Hillary as Commander in Chief during perilous times like this.
Guiliani’s “pro-choice” stand doesn’t bother me so much since realistically he can’t affect the abortion debate toward the “pro-choice” side anyway as President. He and other Republican candidates, however, are on record as saying they would nominate originalists/strict constructionists/conservatives to the SCOTUS, and that’s good enough for me. And appointing judges is something that swing voters and conservatives have better make good note of, the next President will be appointing one if not two jurists to SCOTUS. This is almost as important as the GWOT itself.
3:20 pm
Judging by the kinds of questions that were asked, I’m sure the so-called debate was about as much fun for the candidates as throwing cowsh*t at the village idiot.
Lousy format, inane questions. Republicans should know better than to pin “Kick Me!” signs on their backs by participating in these absurd antics. Expecting fairness and decency from the likes of Mathews and Olberman is like expecting a zebra to change its stripes.
Now, when can we expect to see the Democratic contenders on FOX?
3:22 pm
From the Wall Street Journal:
Military Is Stretched But Not Broken
Given that there isn’t an “army” of liberals lining up to volunteer to be human shields in the near future, there should always be long-term concern about the relative health and resiliency of the U.S. military. Interesting debate, I come down on the side that our military is not broken but does need to be moderately expanded to meet what other contingencies which might arise in another theater of operations. Not much is being said about several hundred thousand other American troops still stationed in England, Germany, Japan and South Korea. I think it time those nations stand on their own two feet, assume the full cost of their defense and American troops and equipment redeploy back to America to be put to better use. Why should we essentially subsidize their national defense? It’s already been sixty years!
6:06 pm
Hank: I have said time and again that we will be able to readily tell when the Army is nearing the ragged edge. There will be two significant indications:
1. Re-enlistments will plummet. And that has not happened.
2. Fragging incidents will rise. There has been only one such incident in this war and that was during the runup to the invasion.
Those were indicators of our failing military at the end of Viet Nam and should be considered primary indicators today. It is easy to just say “Our Military is Broken” but it is a whole lot harder to back it up with demonstrable measures of merit.
8:55 pm
Wasn’t the fragging incident committed by a Muslim fundamentalist jihadist in American uniform?
But I agree with you, those would be two indicators alright. It’s a soldiers right to carp given that they’re the ones being put in harm’s way, so one has to expect complaints about equipment, the tempo, the food/supplies, how difficult war is, etc. But I’ve never been impressed when the lamestream media or liberal blooger can find that one out of twenty soldiers/Marines who is willing to go public with how everything is screwed up, nobody knows what they’re doing, the Commander in Chief is Hitler, everybody is sick and tired of being cannon fodder in a losing war, the mission is immoral and illegal, etc. For every soldier that thinks they are in a losing cause and its all irredeemably fouled up, there are twenty who take great pride in the difference they believe they are making on foreign battlefields despite the difficulties and confusion that are a very real part of any shooting war. And to have to deal with very complicated Rules of Engagement in an urban environment where the enemy uses human shields and anonymous IEDs also has to be very frustrating. But this may be the face of war to come over the next generation so Americans on both sides of the aisle had better starting dealing with that reality.
9:20 pm
The debate, which was actually a q/a session given the amount of candidates running, was respectable. Sure, the media gave hostile questions, but that is their job.
I share the consensus that Romney was the winner. I say this as a Rudy supporter.
Fred Thompson is a creature of people’s imaginations right now. Watch a few videos of him in person, like Tuesday’s interview with Hannity. Lethargic and uncompelling, Thompson the man is not the same as Thompson the actor. I think Thompson, with his plodding and reflective style, could be the, well, Bill Bradley of 2008.
9:23 pm
Rick-
You are truly starting to sound like and write like a leftist troll. That this group of men inspired such vitriol compared to the Democratic slate is troubling to say the least. Get a grip the election is 18 months away and our system allows for the occasional Huckabee or Kuchinch. Narrowing your perspective in the way you do only gives support to the socialists who have the advantage at this point due to the MSM that still have the ability to appeal to an uneducated electorate.
9:40 pm
Um…let’s see.
Howard Baker vs. Tommy Thompson? You’re kidding, right?
John Connally vs. Tom Tancredo? Right.
Phil Crane vs. Duncan Hunter? Be still my heart!
The point is valid. These are a bunch of nobodies – including McCain, Guiliani, and Romney although each would be an adequate candidate. And I didn’t say anything about the Democratic slate so don’t say I “compared” these zeroes to anyone.
They are perfectly capable of being average all by themselves.
9:55 pm
Rick-
Adequate canditates but nobodies? I don’t know where your’e comin from. Who is adequate? I was a Connally supportor in the ‘80 primaries so that shows where I come from, but even I would admit that he had a narrow appeal, even then. Your comparisons of candidates then and now may have an appeal in an abstract sort of way, but they share a similiarity with the candidates of today, most are unelectable, in spite of your personal feelings.
We have to make a judgement based on the politics of today.
I honestly believe it will come down to a choice that may not be made, namely can a Republican ticket beat Clinton/Obama.
11:39 pm
From the Washington Post—Iraqis: Don’t Abandon Us
8:30 am
I think you’ve mislabled your blog if you think the Governator is the ideal candidate. I’m a Repub of the McCain/Schwartzenegger stripe myself and can’t get over the rabid hostility these men generate amoung the true right wing nuts—Rush Limbaugh would vote for Ward Churchill before he’d consider voting for McCain, for example. Romney might beat Hillary on a good night, but against Obama I think our only chance is McCain. The others have too much baggage [Rudy] or are too much like Bush – but convincing our primary voters of that fact is going to be tough.
8:03 am
Just to put this in perspective. When Chris Matthews moderated the FL governor’s debate last fall, the left-leaning (never let the facts get in the way of a good story) St. Petersburg Times editorial blasted Matthews for his stupid questions which concentrated on national issues instead of FL issues.
1:38 am
Submitted for Your Approval…
First off… any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here. Die spambots, die! And now… here are all the links submitted by members of the Watcher’s Council for this week’s vote. Council li…
8:04 am
[...] Rightwing Nut House, “Suffering By Comparison†[...]
5:46 pm
“This run of “power families†who have dominated American politics much of the last 50 years – the Kennedys, the Clintons, the Bush’s, – makes the United States look like a banana republic. Or worse, a debased aristocracy”
Fully agree, but I think that in this case, looks don’t deceive. Or at least not completely.
“The whole point of inventing America was to create a place where it wasn’t supposed to matter who or what your father was, that you were judged on your own talents and merits”
An ironically the only time that this really works is if you’re an immigrant. If you’re born here, the income of your parents determines your income. Not perfectly, of course, but much more so than in almost any western country, except for the inncorrigible class society of the UK.
12:00 am
The Council Has Spoken!...
First off… any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here. Die spambots, die! And now… the winning entries in the Watcher’s Council vote for this week are Does America Elect Defeatists? by …
2:37 pm
Watcher’s Council results…
And now… the winning entries in the Watcher’s Council vote for this week are Does America Elect Defeatists? by Big Lizards, and “Better a Thousand Israeli Invasions…” by Michael J. Totten. All members, please be sure t…
10:10 am
Watcher’s Council Results…
The winning entries in the Watcher’s Council vote for this week are Does America Elect Defeatists? by Big Lizards, and “Better a Thousand Israeli Invasions…” by Michael J. Totten. Here is a link to the full results of the vote. Here…...