The Occasional Observer

When Time Magazine, one of the pillars the leftist MSM, runs a headline like this...

Mitt Romney's Disappointing Campaign
Thursday, May. 31, 2007 By JOE KLEIN

...it's pretty clear what's going on. For the Dem surrogates to bashing Mitt, 18 months before the election, it's a pretty good sign they're terrified of his potential. If Time Magazine really thought it had the goods on Mitt, they'd be hyping his way through the GOP primaries, just in time to slam him in the general.

Consider Klein's criticism: Mitt doesn't get detailed enough in his stump speech. The same criticism is offered 3 or 4 times citing various examples where Mitt "skims the surface" on issues instead of delving deeply. Um, if academic lectures made for good politics, wouldn't we have seen President Stevenson? Gore? Nixo, er, never mind.

Unfortunately, Klein's real criticism is with the fast-food approach to presidential politics. Mitt's a conservative, hence a realist, and will play the game accordingly. I'm not worried about whether Mitt (or any candidate) has a stump speech that is aimed at the common man's heart-strings, rather than the DC think-tank set. I'm concerned with whether the candidate has demonstrated the intellectual acumen, executive prowess, and the willingness to take risks that differentiate great leaders from the pack. Mitt's in good shape on all counts.

I title this: "Yet Another Reason why the NBA Sucks". Alternate title: "Why I'm Still Glad I Stopped Watching the NBA 7 Years Ago".

Hours after Kobe Bryant asked for a trade on Stephen A. Smith's radio show, he backed off after talking to Phil Jackson and told Dan Patrick he wants to be a Laker for life.

Seriously, Kobe, grow a set. Man up and either stick with your original decision, or don't issue such strong positions if you don't have the sack to stick with them.

GLYNCO, Ga. - President Bush attacked opponents of an immigration deal Tuesday, suggesting they "don't want to do what's right for America."

Jeffrey Goldberg has a fascinating article in the New Yorker on the current state of the GOP and its propects for retaining the White House in '08. Fmr. Speaker Gingrich figures prominently in the article, as a conservative Republican who is willing to address the credibility crisis the GOP has right now:

Newt Gingrich is one of those who fear that Republicans have been branded with the label of incompetence. He says that the Bush Administration has become a Republican version of the Jimmy Carter Presidency, when nothing seemed to go right. “It’s just gotten steadily worse,” he said. “There was some point during the Iranian hostage crisis, the gasoline rationing, the malaise speech, the sweater, the rabbit”—Gingrich was referring to Carter’s suggestion that Americans wear sweaters rather than turn up their thermostats, and to the “attack” on Carter by what cartoonists quickly portrayed as a “killer rabbit” during a fishing trip—“that there was a morning where the average American went, ‘You know, this really worries me.’ ” He added, “You hire Presidents, at a minimum, to run the country well enough that you don’t have to think about it, and, at a maximum, to draw the country together to meet great challenges you can’t avoid thinking about.” Gingrich continued, “When you have the collapse of the Republican Party, you have an immediate turn toward the Democrats, not because the Democrats are offering anything better, but on a ‘not them’ basis. And if you end up in a 2008 campaign between ‘them’ and ‘not them,’ ‘not them’ is going to win.”

Given the current mood around the country, is '08 a lost cause for the GOP? Newt looks across the Atlantic and sees reason for hope:

The only way to keep the White House in G.O.P. hands, Gingrich said, would be to nominate someone who, in essence, runs against Bush, in the style of Nicolas Sarkozy, the center-right cabinet minister who just won the French Presidency by making his own President, Jacques Chirac, his virtual opponent. Sarkozy is a transforming figure in French politics, Gingrich said, and he suggested that the only Republican who shared Sarkozy’s “transformative” approach to governing was, at that moment, eating a bowl of oatmeal at the McLean Family Restaurant.

“What’s fascinating about Sarkozy is that you have an incumbent cabinet member of a very unpopular twelve-year Presidency, who over the last three years became the clear advocate of fundamental change, running against an attractive woman”—the Socialist leader Ségolène Royal—“who is the head of the opposition,” Gingrich went on. “In a country that wanted to say, ‘Not them,’ he managed to switch the identity of the ‘them.’ He said, ‘I’m different from Chirac, and she’s not. If you want more of the same, you should vote for her.’ It was a Lincoln-quality strategic decision.”

Very interesting analysis. Romney, for all his stylistic differences with Bush (which are important given our one-inch deep political discourse), still offers praise for the job W has done. The only Republican candidate who has done what Gingrich is suggesting--putting himelf in opposition to the President--is Ron Paul. And the only real heavyweight who would have credibility as an anti-Bush voice, IMO, is Hagel, who might just be too loopy for the public to accept.

Gingrich, like Romney, is a very different person from the president. Where W likes to stay at arms length from cameras and the microphone, Newt loves to be front and center. Where Bush relies on his cabinet to help him frame the agenda, Newt seemingly has a new conservative proposal every day. But for all that, Newt (like Mitt) has supported the President at every critical juncture in the GWOT. The only points of criticsim have been of the, "he did a poor job executing the policy" kind. Meaning that "I would have done the same thing, but achieved a different result." While his executive confidence is refreshing, it's questionable that the voters will buy that assumption. Which leaves a candidate who's willing to say "the decision was wrong in the first place," in a powerful place this campaign season. Since Hagel's going nowhere, that must have Dems' chomping at the bit.

This is outrageous: only 6 of 100 senators and a handful of House members took the time to read the key 90-page classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq before casting their vote to go to war.

Are you sh**ting me?

I can't help but think of Office Space, "So what exactly is it you would say, ya do, around here?" To recap: our elected officials have enough spare time to: (a) vote themselves the whole day off to watch OSU-Florida national title football game, and (b) draft and debate a resolution proclaiming the greatness of Boise State's season, but apparently not enough time to read (or even SKIM) a simple 90-page summary of intelligence before casting the single most important vote they can cast. It's items like these that provide a painful reminder that nearly all politicians are basically in it for themselves, and pursue the position for power or other gain rather than to truly represent the people.

That's why less government is best, and local government is better than federal. Always has been, always will be. Go Mitt in '08, cut spending and taxes, and shrink size of federal government.

Hope the Caribou Express remembers to bring sufficient ammo next time. Particularly when there are boar like this roaming around out there...

An 11-year-old Alabama boy used a pistol to kill a wild hog his father says weighed a staggering 1,051 pounds and measured 9-feet-4 from the tip of its snout to the base of its tail. Think hams as big as car tires. If the claims are accurate, Jamison Stone's trophy boar would be bigger than Hogzilla, the famed wild hog that grew to seemingly mythical proportions after being killed in south Georgia in 2004.

With a hattip to the evil Eyeon08, here's what Michael Gerson had to say in today's WaPo about the President's immigration plan:

The Christian faith teaches that our common humanity is more important than our nationality. That all of us, ultimately, are strangers in this world and brothers to the bone; and all in need of amnesty. This belief does not dictate certain policies in a piece of legislation, but it does forbid rage and national chauvinism.

This is a line of argument I generally expect to hear from liberals, not conservatives: impugn the motives of your opponent but ignore a discussion of facts or logic. Notice the implicit assumption, that people who are against amnesty for those who have broken our immigration laws are full of "rage" and "chauvinism."

While I do have some anger, it is not directed at those who want to come to the U.S. (although I disapprove of their not entering through lawful channels). My anger is at lawmakers who are responsible for providing the border patrol with the resources to do its job, but have failed to do so.

As to Gerson's emotional charge that we need to love our brother (unlike us anti-amnesty "haters"), I would say this: while the Christian faith teaches us to love our fellow man, at no point does it advocate anarchy, or strip the state of its legitimate jurisdiction. Rather, St. Peter explicitly reminds us in scripture to be obedient to proper authorities and follow the law.

Virtually every state claims, and has always claimed, the right to restrict the flow of people into and out of its borders. Failure to do so is an invitation to anarchy, as Rome found out the hard way. It would be a dereliction of duty for the government to give up on enforcing the borders, and hardly an injustice.

One might respond to Gerson's "chauvinist" slights by saying that the hard-hearted chauvinists are actually those who would incent people to leave their wives and children, trek across the desert and risk their lives, rather than create a reasonable immigration policy that would force the Mexican government to improve the lives of its own citizens, instead of flushing millions of souls across the border because it doesn't want to deal with improving their lot.

Gerson’s argument also makes three more assumptions which are dubious at best:

1) The GOP stands to gain hispanic votes by supporting amnesty.

In fact, the polling I’ve seen shows that hispanic voters are not in favor of amnesty, albeit by a smaller margin than the population in general. Equating those who believe in law enforcement with “nativists” is a cheap ploy.

2) Anti-amnesty politicians only stand to lose states that Bush carried, such as Florida and the southwest.

In fact, anti-amnesty politicians stand to gain in other swing regions, such as the midwest (MN,IA, WI, MI, OH, PA-ex-Philly). There are more electoral votes in these tightly contested states than those mentioned by Gerson.

3) Breaking 40% of the the hispanic vote is possible for the GOP by pandering to the pro-amnesty crowd. "If a Republican presidential candidate doesn’t get about 40 percent of the Latino vote nationwide, he or she doesn’t stand much of a chance... A nativist party will cease to be a national party." Failure to pander is the same as "conceding Latinos to the Democrats in perpetuity"

In fact, breaking 40% of the hispanic vote is a sure thing for the GOP, if we are controlling our border and allowing educated, bilingual, hard-working, upwardly mobile and skilled hispanics into our country to lay down roots and become citizens, in numbers our society can absorb.

Breaking 40% of the hispanic vote will be impossible if we continue to allow millions of unskilled, non-English speaking day-laborers to stream into this country, form a permanent underclass and subculture. A permanent underclass will ultimately see the path to greater wealth as government programs and liberalism, and that is a political outcome that would break the GOP.

I expect as much from Dems, but these 8 Republicans voted against ending so-called "sanctuary cities" that intentionally turn a blind eye to those who break our immigration laws.

Graham (R-SC) - Big Chief Douchebag
Hagel (R-NE) - "Who wants to be a 3rd party Veep?" douchebag
Lugar (R-IN)- Color me surprised
Martinez (R-FL) - lightweight douchebag
Snowe (R-ME) - I disapprove, Senator Snowe
Specter (R-PA) - Big tent douchebag
Voinovich (R-OH) - Cried while casting his vote douchebag
Domenici (R-NM) - Should have retired already douchey-douche

I grow weary of John McCain's boyfriend Lindsey Graham. Piece of advice Lindsay: Russert keeps having you on the Meet the Press because he knows you'll fall all over yourself for an ounce of MSM praise, regardless of which fellow Republicans you'll have to backstab to get it. Following right in your husband's footsteps...

BTW, thought this post on wikipedia might be helpful to the unitiated public

..looking good in Iowa and New Hampshire. He's purposely focused a lot of his time and effort on early primary states, which just goes to show that once people get to know him, they will support him.

I hate huge blockquotes, but Rush nails the politics of this issue: from the myopia of the GOP, to the intelligent long-term strategy of the Dems, to the joint effort at obfuscating the real issues at play, in which Congressional Republicans are willing participants. The GOP will get the blame for this bill in the short term because it will be seen as Bush's bill (and throw away whatever '08 chances they have left), and the Dems will reap the demographic benefits in the long term.

Here's the link to the complete transcript

We're discussing the Comprehensive Destroy the Republican Party Act, today, and the Republicans are too idiotic to figure out that that's what this is. What the liberals are trying to do is tear this country down institution by institution and rebuild it in their image, and this is one of the steps that they're trying to do this...

There are Democrats in California and Arizona and Texas and Virginia. Look, we've lost California. It used to be a Republican state. We've lost it. It's gone. We don't even compete there, do we? When we elect a Republican governor, look what he has to do to stay in office: become one of them. If we lose Virginia and we lose Florida, folks, it's over. I'm talking about electorally here. This is very, very serious stuff. These Democrats will get hurt, some of them will, particularly the freshmen in the House. The Senate Democrats, the Democrats would love for the Republicans to be the ones seen as passing this bill. They would love two things to happen: the bill get passed, and they get to build their new welfare state. You know, one of the provisions in this is scary. It allows family members to come on in -- and, by the way, don't believe this business that they gotta go back home, come back, get in line and so forth.

The minute this bill passes in whatever form -- the minute the president puts signature on it -- they are legal. That is something everybody's missing. They are legal without having to leave the country or go home or come back and do anything. The fact of the matter is that the Democrats would love for this thing to get passed and create their new welfare state -- and then the anger in the country over it be directed at the Republicans. The key to this is, there's a Republican president that's going to sign it!...

...there's so many terms that the supporters of this are using to try to capture your heart and to wrest control of your emotions. This is not about citizenship. To say it's about citizenship is a diversion. All of these people will become legal the moment Bush signs the bill. Whether they become citizens or not, they become legal -- and the courts have ruled that we gotta educate the children of illegals in some states. We have to educate the children of illegal immigrants! Even though they're not citizens, we have to pay their health care.

Hello, new welfare state sanctioned simply by the signature on the bill. Don't get caught up in citizenship. Get caught up in the word "legal" and what that will mean legally and financially...

When they become legal, they are conferred with rights and benefits. Those rights and benefits are immediately conferred upon them. They are here legally. They cannot be deported. They can work wherever they want. They can live wherever they want. They receive the same due-process rights as the rest of us.

This is the big lie in the bill, where they tell us all the measures an illegal has to take to become a citizen, have to pay $5,000, have to go home, come back and so forth. They become legal immediately. All of that is just window dressing to make you think there's going to have to be some sort of effort made on these people's part for this to happen, but it's not. Once they become legal, citizenship or no citizenship, then it's over. They are legally entitled to the welfare state. They are legally entitled to whatever any other citizen is entitled to, even though they're not citizens. Ted Kennedy knows this.

In addition, they plan to allow 400,000 new aliens to come to this country every year who will be on a fast track to legalization. We are not just talking there about legalizing the 12 million or 15 million or whatever the number is. We're going to now add 400,000 more per year on a fast track, in addition to that number -- and each one of them, the 12 million, 15 million who are here, the 400,000 who come each year legally can bring certain members of the family with them, on average at least four. You bring husband. You got wife, you got kids, you got parents. We are talking tens of millions. We're talking a profound demographic shift, radical demographic shift on this, and what's this about? Let's get into the politics of this, because it ain't about citizenship, and it isn't about compassion. It isn't about leading the poor, the tired, the worn out to brighter futures and brighter lights. The liberals and the Democrats in this country are changing the electorate so they can destroy the Republican Party and guarantee victory for as far as the eye can see. Anybody out there who thinks that these new millions who are coming in here are going to somehow become conservatives, when they don't have to...

...They are going to be wards of the Democrat Party, and the Democrat Party knows it. Check out who's behind the sponsorship of this bill, check out who had veto power, check out all liberal organizations. Check out who runs these protests on illegal immigration, and look at how many people show up. If you think you're looking at a pool of future Republican conservatives out there, you need to look again. This is about getting a brand-new electorate, reshaping it and being able to win election after election after election. These are socialists, folks. I'm not talking about the illegals. I'm talking about the liberals. They are socialists who want a big government, and they want a big state, and they want people in need and dependent on that state. They are running out of victims. Hence, this is part of it. I assure you that I am right about this. This bill, this piece of legislation assaults virtually every aspect of our belief system. Let me run down the list here for you. I wrote some things down. We are giving benefits and rights to lawbreakers. That's not conservative. That's not even American. We're expanding massively the size of entitlement programs. Meanwhile, Social Security is on the brink, Medicare is about to fall apart, and what are we doing? We are redistributing wealth to subsidize all the poor people who flow into our country from the Third World. We are leaving border security to another day -- and these phony arguments that they're beefing up the border, that's just strategeric posturing as well. They haven't built the 700 mile wall. They're not in a rush to do so. In fact, they built like 28% of it.

Once illegal immigrants have been legalized, they're inexorably on their way to voting. "Two-step amnesty," as Bay Buchanan calls it.

This is going to be a huge push down the road to give all these people the vote. "Look how hard they're working." Even if they don't become citizens, that's the next thing that's going to happen because that's what this is all about. "Yes, these people, must have the right to vote! They're hard workers. They are among us. They are contributing to this country's GDP. They must have the right to vote on their representation." I can hear it all now.

They work hard. Get the violins out, folks. "They work hard. They pay taxes. They contribute to our society. Why shouldn't they vote? This is slavery," Ted Kennedy will say. "It's slavery. Why, it's bigotry," and it will all, of course, be blamed on the Republicans. "Republicans are racists and sexists and bigots!

They don't want these people in the country! Oh, they don't want them voting and all that," and of course, sadly, there will be some Republican types -- you can name the names -- out there agreeing with them when they try to change the definition or terms in this legislation, like giving them the vote before they become citizens. At the end of the day here, what we're talking about is the marginalization, if not the destruction of the Republican Party. Look, it's time to be blunt here. I said I'm going to stop carrying the water last November, and I'm not carrying the water. The current crop of Republican leaders has not only lost the Congress, the current crop of Republican leaders is on the way to destroying the base by signing on to this kind of legislation.

With a hat tip to RedState's Erick and thanks to fabulous Cato Byrne (Kate O'Beirne, if you'll recall that little MSM transcript SNAFU), who wrote a post at the Corner detailing the one thing you need to know about the immigration amnesty bill right now:

Bad to Worse [Kate O'Beirne]

Analysts at the Heritage Foundation have the current legislative text of the immigration deal and are alarmed at provisions they view as dangerous loopholes. They point out that once the bill is signed its language appears to create a "cease and desist" order on law enforcement given what looks like a prima facie assumption that any illegal alien is eligible for amnesty and can therefore be given preliminary legal status. Under the "Treatment of Application" section, once an application for the new "Z" visa has been filed, it appears that the government has only "one business day" to identity a disqualifying factor or the visa must be issued. And lots of provisions are apparently able to be waived by Cabinet secretaries so there's plenty of discretion for the next Clinton administration.

He was an absolute force on the Senate Judiciary Committee, both in the filibuster brouhaha and the Alito & Roberts hearings. He and Sen. Kyl went to the wall to fight against comprehensive immigration amnesty last year. And now he's the only Senator with the guts to call out McCain on selling out the American people for political campaign points: and do it to McCain's face. Could anyone be less centered, less gracious, and more egotistical (not to mention more full of it) than McCain was when he shouted: "F___ You, I know more about this than anyone in the room"?

Sounds a little like Anakin Skywalker saying "You don't know the power of the dark side," moments before before leaping to his immolation.

Mitt comes out strongly against bill.

Hey, not a bad idea...

Twenty-nine. That is how many times the word "Reagan," as in Ronald Reagan,was evoked descriptively or in homage during the first debate among Republican presidential candidates.

If people watching the debate had been playing the "name" drinking game -- guzzle a beer or a shot of liquor every time a predetermined name is mentioned -- and had picked Reagan as the name, none of them could have gotten out of bed the next morning.

Had they picked George Bush, whose name was brought up once, they would have been stone-cold sober for 90 minutes.

I honestly have no idea what this means, but Hagel's hinting strongly at a 3rd party run.

Hagel hints at independent White House bid
By Klaus Marre
May 13, 2007
Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel on Sunday hinted at the possibility of running for the White House as an independent, saying a credible third party ticket would be beneficial to the country.

“I am not happy with the Republican Party today,” Hagel said, adding that the party is not what it was when he joined. “It’s been hijacked by a group of single-minded, almost isolationist insulationists, power-projectors...”

The senator, who has most notably strayed from his party and President Bush on the Iraq war, said he would make up his mind about whether to run by the end of the summer.

Hagel met recently with New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, who some say is also weighing an independent bid for the presidency. The senator said no deals were made at the meeting but, in an interview Sunday with CBS’s “Face the Nation,” he expressed admiration for Bloomberg.

“It’s a great country to think about a New York boy and a Nebraska boy to be teamed up leading this nation,” Hagel responded when asked about joining a ticket with Bloomberg, who has the resources to fund a presidential run.

The senator also said a third party bid would be good for a system in which both parties “have been hijacked by the extremes.”

Mitt's now had 4 first place poll finishes according to HeavyM at Race42008: MA, NH, MI, and UT. The train's a-rolling.

Al Sharpton clearly caught in yet another stupid statement, attacking Mitt Romney's faith, attempted to spin it. First, his statement:

"As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyways, so don't worry about that; that's a temporary situation," Sharpton said Monday during a debate with Hitchens at the New York Public Library's Beaux-Arts headquarters.

After being called out for his obvious attack on Mitt's faith, he responded:

In a later interview with the AP, Sharpton denied questioning Romney's belief in God...Rather, the New York Democrat said he was contrasting himself with Christopher Hitchens, the atheist author he was debating at the time.

WHAT? How the F is there any possible way that Sharpton could spin his quote to indicate he was attacking his debate opponent Hitchens' atheist views? His statement is so clearly specific in its direction towards Mitt and Mormons that it is laughable that he would even attempt to spin it. Of course, he'll get a pass, unlike Imus.

RCP average shows Rudy dropping steadily over past two months, and latest story about his multiple contributions to Planned Parenthood may seal his fate.

The more I think about it, I really hope the RNC is doing some behind-the-scenes organizing to make sure that the Republicans remain in position to win in '08. That is to say, minimize negative attacks on each other leading up to primaries; avoid revelation of potentially damaging info in general election that could be used by other side; etc. I would take almost any of the present Republican candidates over Billary, Obama, Edwards, or Gore. In particular I find almost all the Republican candidates to be strong on key issues of GWOT and fiscal policy.

I wonder which of the current candidates would be willing to run as VP? If Rudy really does retain his stranglehold on the front-runner position, this is something all others will have to ask themselves. I think it would be a good choice for Mitt: he has relatively little political experience so serving as VP could bolster him in that area, and he's young enough that delaying a presidential run for 8 years is not out of the question. On the other hand, if Rudy added someone with strong SoCon appeal, that could expand his base of voters and make him a virtual lock in '08.

That said, I really hope Rudy's appeal fades over time and Mitt makes a power move to lock up undecideds or weakly aligned voters, to propel himself into first place. I still see him as the best balance of conservative policies and pragmatic politics. He's done well at both CPAC and first televised debate, time to translate that into increased supporters.

Chirac is out, and almost certainly better France-US relations will be in with Sarkozy.

Two good things about Sarkozy: (1) he wants to be better allies with US, (2) his presence is going to end years of France's ass-kissing of terrorists. This will force the balance of power in Europe and I think will also provide a much-needed voice beyond that of US and Australia to the Arab world to clean up their own problems.

Gov. Huckabee floored me when he announced he wanted to push for the Fair Tax. As far as I'm aware, this makes him the first GOP candidate to call for abolishing the IRS and replacing the income tax with a consumption tax. As far as I'm concerned (and for reasons discussed on this blog before), this would be the single most beneficial change in tax policy that our country could have at this point. Liking Huckabee already, I was extremely happy to hear him announce this position.

In fact, Mrs Fredo had to scold me because of the sleeping children. What can I do? Exciting times are exciting times.

as Rush would say.

I just love this headline from Yahoo! News:

• Climate change led to Neanderthals' demise, scientists say

You can kind of imagine the discussion that went into picking this headline:

Ben Bradlee: "OK, boys, we've got nothing to lead with. Nothing. This one headline looks promising but it's incomplete: Something led to Neanderthal's demise."

Naive intern: "Do we know what scientists think killed the Neanderthal?"

Han Solo: "Look kid, scientists are a dime a dozen. Just write your headline and we'll find one who supports us."

Kieth Olbermann: "George W Bush killed the Neanderthal. And then became a Neanderthal to cover it up. How stupid. How deviously genius."

Woodward: "I had an off-the-record sit down with the GEICO cave men, and they assured me that the Neanderthal are indeed alive and well. I have a second source that confirmed via negative consent."

Rosie: "What a load of bull. Figures I'm in a room full of straight white men. The answer is obvious: our culture of intolerance killed the Neanderthal."

Bradlee: "Compelling."

Sen. Reid: "That is not compelling. I can't sell that to the independent voter. It's our culture of corruption that killed the Neanderthal."

Algore: "I'd prefer to stick to my, er, the facts. As such, I've brought along 25 copies of An Inconvenient Truth. If you'll quickly turn to page 78, I'd like you take a look at some of the hypothesized charts showing global mean temperature change over 1000 year intervals. I think you'll find that when the Neanderthal began moving from cooking meat over fire pits to using coal-based BBQ pits, global temperatures began changing radically."

Han Solo: "Hokie science and ancient scare tactics are no match for a good headline at your side."

Bradlee: "Good point, Han. What are you getting at Al?"

Olbermann: "O'Reilly killed the Neanderthal?"

Algore: "It's climate change that killed the Neanderthal. Now if you'll move along to page 79..."

Bradlee: "Thanks Al. We're good. I think we've got our headline. Senator?"

Reid [rummaging through his man-purse]: "I think I've got my stamp in here somewhere..."

you are really glad to be proven wrong about someone.

Check out this post over at the National Review. It has a bunch of short reviews on the debate, from respected and intelligent conservative commentators.

From the comments:

-Several commented that MSNBC did a terrible job, from format to moderating

-Most agreed that Romney had a very good night

-Most agreed that Huckabee had a very good night, some saying he may have catapulted himself into or near the first tier.

-Most thought that Hunter and Gilmore did a decent enough job

-Most agreed that Giuliani had a very bad night

-Negative comments outweighed the positives for T. Thompson, Tancredo, Paul, and Brownback

One last point on Ron Paul, before I forget, and because I'll probably never have reason to comment on the man again. I thought he was articulate, reasonable, and much more serious than I had given him credit for. I think his principled brand of libertarian/sound money/small government conservatism is admirable, but probably not practical in light of many of the threats our country faces today (immigration invasion, cultural decay, jihadism). Those at N.R. who characterized him as a "crazy uncle" were, IMHO, out of line.

France's days of being a bunch of dandies might be over soon.. Might become much more useful ally to US.

The main problem with the debate was the format. I heard Newt on Fox News stating that it would be nice to hear some back and forth from the candidates without so much moderating. I agree entirely.

My main gripes with the format:

1) Too often, only one candidate was asked to respond to a question. This made it impossible to get a sense of contrast between candidates. The two notable exceptions were Iraq, where each candidate had the chance to discuss, and the "down the line" questions, which was of limited usefulness because "yes" and "no" typically doesn't flesh out a position.

2) The wrong questions were asked of the wrong candidates. Especially grievous was asking Gilmore about the female prison population. Why not ask Brownback about an issue that he has been specifically discussing on the stump?

3) Overly combative, "gotcha" questions. Not only were several of the questions stupid, but the moderators (especially the Politico guy) seemed to revel in asking them in a nasty tone. I'm glad these guys have a taste of what the Dem/MSM teamwork will feel like in the General, but it was a waste of valuable debate time. Examples:

-to Romney: "What do you like least about America?"

-to McCain: "You were against Bush's tax cuts but now are for them. That makes no sense." [If the follow up had been, "please explain", that might have made sense]

Then there was this ridiculous exchange between Matthews and Huckabee [directly from the transcript]:

Moderator: Governor Huckabee, you've criticized Governor Romney for saying his faith wouldn't get in the way of his public life, his governing. Are you going to back that up tonight?

Huckabee: I've never criticized Governor Romney for that.

(Crosstalk)

Huckabee: I said, in general -- and I would say this tonight to any of us -- when a person says, "My faith doesn't affect my decision- making," I would say that the person is saying their faith is not significant to impact their decision process.

I tell people up front, "My faith does affect my decision process." It explains me. No apology for that. My faith says, "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you..."

Moderator: But you answered a question that George Stephanopoulos of ABC about this governor, one of your rivals, and you answered it in this way: "I'm not as troubled by a person who has a different faith. I'm troubled by a person who tells me their faith doesn't influence their decisions."

That's in direct response to George Stephanopoulos on February 11th of this year. Why are you changing that point of view now?

Huckabee: Well, I didn't know I was changing the point of view.

Moderator: No, you're changing your quote.

Huckabee: I'm saying that of anyone, whether it's Governor Romney or Governor Gilmore...

Moderator: Well, you answered in direct response to Governor Romney and his Mormonism. Why are you pulling back now?

Huckabee: I don't mean to be pulling back. I want to state very clearly: A person's faith shouldn't qualify or disqualify for public office. It shouldn't do that.

But we ought to be honest and open about it. And I think it does help explain who we are, what our value systems are, what makes us tick, and what our processors are.

"Are you going to back that up?" Why not ask him, "are you a man or a chick?" Is this seriously a debate worthy approach to asking questions? First, Matthews infers a meaning from Huckabee's quote that is not at all a sure thing, given that Huckabee never mentions Romney in the quote. But rather than allowing the candidate to explain himself, Matthews simply defines Huckabee as "backing down" when it was, at a minimum, questionable that he actually was changing his story. He goes on to imply that that Hucakbee had flip-flopped. There is no reason for a moderator to be taking that approach. Disgraceful.

UPDATE:

Here's the full transcript on the Stephanopoulos/Huckabee conversation. It totally acquits Huckabee of Matthews' charges and proves that he was being consistent:

[1]10:23:37 GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS (ABC NEWS)
(OC) Governor Romney, his religion, he's a Mormon, has become a – is going to become a big part of this campaign clearly. You're a southern Baptist, former southern Baptist preacher.


[1]10:23:45 MIKE HUCKABEE (2008 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE)
Uh-huh.


[1]10:23:46 GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS (ABC NEWS)
(OC) And that denomination teaches I believe that Mormonism is a cult. How big a hurdle is that going to be for Governor Romney in this campaign?


[1]10:23:56 MIKE HUCKABEE (2008 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE)
Well, you know, I'm not sure and I don't know that anyone knows. What I can tell you is about my faith and what it means and I think people ought to look at every person who runs for office and they ought to ask them questions about who they are and what they are about and what drives their decisions. I'm not as troubled by a person who has a different faith.

That is all.