Who Finished Second?
Here’s my tally (first-tier only, excluding, obviously, FDT):
Illegal Immigration: Advantage Romney
Family Values: Hard to say, since Romney drew abortion and Rudy got a gun control meatball. But Mitt’s answer was sufficiently abstruse that I guess Rudy gets this duke by default.
National Security: Frankly, McCain schooled both of them. Rudy’s answer was bad; Romney’s answer was pathetic. The “The Surge is ‘apparently’ working” weasel hedge is the major gaffe Mitt had thus far avoided in this campaign, and it’s gonna hurt him.
Domestic Counter-Terrorism: Strong comebacks for both.
Taxes: Romney signed the Americans For Tax Reform pledge and handled the question about his initial raising of state fees excellently by pointing out how he succeeded in cutting tax rates in a state just this side of Venezuela on the ideological spectrum.
Rudy hasn’t signed the AFTR pledge and completely ducked explaining why. “A president should only take one pledge” (i.e. the oath of office) is no answer. So I can only conclude that he wants to keep his tax-raising options open.
Advantage, Romney, in a rout.
Iran Scenario: Everybody lamely punted on this one, even Tancredo, who I thought might get in his “nuke Mecca & Medina” angle here, so Rudy and Mitt had plenty of company.
I’d give it to Romney on technical points, but he didn’t avoid the big-time gaffe and Rudy did, and that’s the measuring stick for any kind of debate in the television age.
September 5th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Reality Check
Sir Winston Churchill once said, “The price of greatness is responsibility.” These days, people seem to equate greatness with celebrity, bestowing leadership upon those who can act the part, smile at the cameras, and say what we want to hear. Charm and poise have replaced grit and determination. Our leaders must look good to make us feel good. Our Presidential candidates must be charismatic, handsome and dynamic, rather than honest, hard working, and sincere. In other words, we’re in love with the illusion, instead of looking for substance.
We’re looking for the best candidate to win the next election, and so we bank all of our money on the illusionists – TV actors turned politicians; liberal mayors seeking the limelight; and political flip-floppers hoping everyone forgets the past. We get sucked into this at each election and we end up getting the leaders we deserve: flip-flopping liberal actors.
In our rush to beat the opposition, we forget that we are laying the mantel of responsibility of this great nation upon the shoulders of one person. The price of greatness for our nation lies in the hands and heart of the candidate we elect, and we had better hope that person knows what responsibility looks like. Celebrity may charm the nation, but it cannot lead the world. In the years that lie ahead of this nation, integrity, strength, and character will be needed in the Whitehouse. Stardom will grow stale and popularity will pale. We need a leader who will lead, not one who just wants to win the race.
Teddy Roosevelt once said, “Far and away the best prize that life offers is the chance to work hard at work worth doing.” When we go to choose our candidate for the Whitehouse, we need to look at the hard work ethic and strong character of the person we nominate. We need to find a Churchill for our nation and a Teddy Roosevelt for our people.
There is one candidate whose military service, political track record, and vision for the future encapsulate these vital characteristics. He is not a celebrity, and his ambition is for America, not himself.
His name is Duncan Hunter.
September 6th, 2007 at 12:22 am
I won.
I didn’t waste my time watching.
I’m voting for the Republican in 008.
I remember 006.
September 6th, 2007 at 6:20 am
And Duncan Hunter has no shot. If memory serves, the last sitting Congressmen to win the presidency was James K. Polk in 1844. It just doesn’t happen that way, John.
That’s not a knock on Hunter. Everything you say about him is true. But the reality is that a pol can be right on every issue and have courage and grit and character to boot and still not have a snowball’s chance. In the television/mass communications age, candidates are vehicles for parties and ideas. If you put up a stolid family sedan like Hunter against an Edsel holographically camouflaged to look like a Porsche (i.e. Hillary), the fake Porsche will win every time, even though the sedan is the more sensible choice.
If you go by resume, Mitt Romney is the hands-down choice. If you go by charisma, it’s Fred Thompson. If you listen to the media, it’s Rudy Giuliani. I’m afraid “he’s the best man” isn’t one of the criteria - and never has been.
Yes, we need a leader that can lead. But you can’t lead without winning the race first. For weal or for woe, Duncan Hunter can’t. Better to make the best of the candidates who can and cease indulging in impossibilities.