Axis of Right

Three Native Rhode Islanders Commenting From the Right on Politics and Anything Else

Archive for May 3rd, 2007

Republican Debate Winners: Romney, Hunter, McCain. Losers: Giuliani, MSDNC

Posted by Mike on May 3, 2007

MAY 16 UPDATE: My take on the South Carolina debate can be found here.

The following is this undecided conservative’s opinion of tonight’s Republican debate.

No knockout punches were going to be delivered in a single showing, but there were some clear winners and losers in tonight’s Republican debate. Each candidate had their unique objectives they needed to accomplish and all needed to avoid stumbling. Some candidates did better than others. The winners were Mitt Romney, Duncan Hunter, and John McCain. Besides MSNBC, the big loser was Rudy Giuliani.

Mitt Romney did very well this evening. It was clear from the outset that unlike the Democrats, Romney understands the scope of the war on terror. He stated that Osama Bin Laden will pay and will die, but that the war is something larger than one man. While explaining his own evolution on life, he exposed Chrissy for the fool he is when he provided a detailed explanation of stem cell research. Finally, he delivered the money quote of the evening when asked if Bill Clinton returning to the White House would be a good thing. Romney’s response: “You have GOT to be kidding.” He also scored points when he educated Chrissy that it is not the President’s job to tell Catholic Bishops how to do their job. Stylistically, he was poised, articulate and photogenic. No Democrat will look forward to debating this man.

Duncan Hunter also did very well. In fact, it can be argued that he looked Vice Presidential. He was solid on fiscal and life issues. He also reminded the country that Bill Clinton gutted the military. As a solid military supporter, Hunter’s criticism of Clinton were especially credible.

John McCain did what he needed to do. He fumbled his stem cell answer, but his performance was otherwise pretty solid. He slammed the Democrats for their celebration following passage of their surrender bill and insisted that if he were to put a Democrat in the Cabinet, it would be Joe Lieberman. McCain didn’t score any touchdowns but there weren’t any turnovers either.

The big loser tonight was Rudy Giuliani. There were many questions about the culture of life and Rudy’s answers were nothing short of pathetic. The overturning of Roe v. Wade would either be a good thing or bad thing. No wait, it would be a wonderful thing. Giuliani’s indifference to Roe coupled with his insistence that a strict constructionist judge could rule either way will do Rudy no favors.

MSNBC was also a big loser in tonight’s debate. The time allocations were anything but equal and the irrelevant and loaded questions are too numerous to mention so I’ll only mention a few. The Karl Rove and Bill Clinton as First Lady questions were completely irrelevant. Asking Rudy if he regretted the way he dealt with black people as Mayor was not supported by anything even resembling a fact. That question was so loaded it makes me wonder if it was written by Al Sharpton. Also, this wasn’t Hardball. Whoever followed Tom Tancredo’s final answer should have ripped Chrissy a new one for interrupting.

Earlier today, I speculated that Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich’s chances could be harmed if Romney gave a strong performance. Romney did indeed deliver a strong performance, but it wasn’t enough to harm any of the candidates who might enter the race in the future.

UPDATE: Check out Sister Toldjah and Michelle Malkin for more instant reaction.

UPDATE 2: Click here for a debate transcript.

Advertisements

Posted in Election 2008, Politics | 12 Comments »

Follow Arnold? I Don’t Think So.

Posted by Mike on May 3, 2007

A few minutes ago, I turned on the television and switched over to the little network covering tonight’s GOP debate. Less than sixty seconds into watching this crap, I heard a post-worthy comment. One of the liberals providing “objective” coverage cited Arnold Schwarzenegger as both an example and a lesson for the candidates on stage. What a bunch of poppycock.

Arnold would be a great example for a GOP Presidential candidate only if the Republican primary was open only to liberal Democrats and if only California voted in the general election. MSDNC has enough trouble accurately reporting what happened five minutes ago so I know history isn’t exactly their forte, but they should at least try. Republican candidates who run as centrists lose (Ford, Bush the Elder in ’92, Dole), Republicans who run as conservatives win (Nixon, Reagan, Bush the Elder in ’88, Bush the Younger).

Arnold is not the example. The man in whose honor the facility was named would be a better choice.

Posted in Election 2008, Media Bias, Politics | 1 Comment »

Could We End Up Liking the French Again?

Posted by Ryan on May 3, 2007

It may just happen!  I have been quietly watching events in France in regards to the Presidential election runoff between UMP Nicolas Sarkozy (sar-ko-zee) and Socialist Segolene Royal (roi-ahl).  Sarkozy, a candidate who was getting smack for actually saying he would shake Bush’s hand if (as President) they ever met, just handily beat the femme-fatal Royal in their latest televized debate.  That’s huge for a “not-anti” Bush French Presidential candidate!  Being center-right and more conservative than Chirac, Sarkozy could initiate a slow rapprochement with the USA!  He’s been leading in the polls since the initial election last month and has not let up his mo-. 

What are the Moonbats to do if Sarkozy wins?  France was becoming the last bastion of overt anti-Americanism in Europe.  Italy has a fragile center government, Germany has their version of a Republican, and now France of all places, could make a turn to the Right! 

Reuters photo.

Posted in Europe, Politics | 1 Comment »

Romney’s Opportunity

Posted by Mike on May 3, 2007

Two conservatives are making a big mistake by not participating in tonight’s Republican debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library: Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich. The candidate who stands to gain from this blunder is none other than Mitt Romney. The only question dogging Romney’s campaign at this point is not the conservative philosophy he’s running on, it’s whether he’s sincere about that philosophy. Although no single debate performance is dispositive at this early stage, a strong performance tonight could help Romney dispel some doubts. And if he does, Thompson and Gingrich will be worse off.

Waiting is not good strategy in Presidential politics. Newt Gingrich tried to play the waiting game for several months and did so without consequence while conservatives were desperately looking for and failed to find a candidate who could carry their banner. However, Gingrich’s waiting game gave Fred Thompson the opportunity to float his trial balloon and steal Gingrich’s thunder. Tonight, both Gingrich and continue the waiting game. Doing so gives Romney the opportunity to steal their thunder.

Romney is running as a conservative and comes across very well in a debate format. Conservatives will like what they hear from Romney tonight. He is running on a strong national defense, unborn rights even on the stem cell issue, low taxes and limited government. If Romney is at all successful in convincing people that he means what he says, then Thompson and Gingrich have shot themselves in the foot.

We’ll know later tonight if this is the case.

UPDATE: I don’t think it is the case. Here are my thoughts on the debate.

UPDATE 2: Peggy Noonan thinks Fred needs to get a move on:

I return to the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, Calif., Thursday night. It was an incomplete field that made its debut, but not an unimpressive one. For the first time, as I watched, I thought: Fred Thompson shouldn’t take forever to get in. History moves.

Posted in Election 2008, Politics | 7 Comments »

Bush Likely to Veto Hate Crimes Legislation

Posted by Mike on May 3, 2007

Once again, the Bush administration Bush is threatening to use its veto power. This time the target is hate crimes legislation. Assuming the administration follows through, kudos to President Bush! The idea that a crime motivated by hate should be punished more severely than the same crime motivated by “something else” is absurd.

The first problem with hate crimes legislation codifies the warped idea that some victims are more worthy of protection than others. Hate crimes legislation supporters do not seem to realize that every crime victim’s life is equally valuable and worthy of the same protection.  The concept of human dignity tells us this true. Moreover, the U.S. Constitution requires this to be true. Hate crimes legislation is more than constitutionally suspect, providing one crime victim less protection than a victim of the same crime is a clear violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

The second problem with hate crimes legislation is that it incorrectly addresses the issue of crime. What violent crime is not motivated by hate? The decision to take the life of another human being or simply using violence on another human being is hateful, regardless of motivation. How many criminals can honestly claim that beating someone to a pulp with a baseball bat is an act of love? Crime is hateful regardless of the victim’s skin color or the aggressor’s motivation.

The third and arguably the most disturbing problem with this legislation is the fact that it punishes thought. Many thoughts are disgusting, including racism. However, unacted-upon thoughts are merely thoughts, nothing more. Punishment is only appropriate when those thoughts are acted upon in an illegal manner, and only the illegal act should be punished. People should be free to think whatever thoughts they choose, so long as their actions remain within the bounds of law. When thought leads to action, the action should be punished, not the thought.

The President is right to threaten a veto and he seems to be enjoying this power. If only he discovered it earlier.

Link via Drudge

Posted in Politics | 2 Comments »