Tape-delayed debate analysis

Posted: Thursday, September 06, 2007 12:12 AM by Chuck Todd

From NBC’s Chuck Todd
I had to watch on TiVo tonight... I started watching the debate live around 10pm and then stopped myself and watched from the beginning on tape delay. The last two debates on ABC were both taped delayed for those of us in D.C., so I’m getting used to filing late these days. BTW, what did we ever do before TiVO, but I digress.

There were three clear winners tonight: Giuliani, Huckabee and Thompson. And there was one big loser tonight: Romney.

Let’s start with the winners: Thompson came out a winner within the first five minutes thanks to the moderator’s opening question about the candidate-to-be’s decision to go on Jay Leno instead of showing up for this debate. The fact that every candidate (including Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee and even McCain) took potshots (a few of which were even a bit cheap) reinforced the idea that the entire Republican field views Thompson as a major candidate, a major threat and one of the frontrunners. The Thompson folks could not have asked for a better setup.

As for the two winners of the debate who actually participated, Giuliani’s performance was particularly strong, perhaps his best debate to date. He’s clearly comfortable being the frontrunner; he absorbs the attacks from opponents without looking as if that opponent matters. His strongest answers were in defense of NOT signing the no-tax pledge and on guns. Judging by how Giuliani treated his opponents on stage, one gets the sense the only candidate Giuliani fears is Thompson since he’s the only candidate Rudy truly engaged.

Huckabee doing well at a debate is about as common as the sun rising in the east. In particular, the exchange with Ron Paul where Huckabee got to defend McCain, defend the surge and also call Iraq a mistake was, dare I say, a mix of Reagan and Clinton. He was just smooth and showed himself as someone who is a good conservative Republican who could be a very electable Republican nominee.

The big loser tonight (of the top tier candidates) was Romney. He certainly didn’t have any friends among the debate questioners and the diner patrons and that kept Romney on the defensive all night. (Will his campaign question how much they’ve been sucking up to Fox, btw?) In all seriousness, Romney’s got to figure out how to turn all these attacks into a positive; Wednesday night was not a great night for the candidate purported to be ahead in the early states.

As for the rest of the field, McCain was a bit uneven. At times, he was funny and loose; at other times, he was almost OVERLY serious and a bit tight. That uneven mix kept me from calling him one of my winners. Brownback seems less and less relevant (why did he stay in after his poor Ames Straw poll showing?); Tancredo seemed almost a non-factor; Hunter is very good at playing the Patriot card but what part of the party does Hunter represent that the frontrunners aren’t representing?; Ron Paul was as angry as he’s been; At one point, I was simply wondering why he just didn’t scream, “Hey kids, GET OFF MY LAWN!”

The next post has my tape-delayed as-I-was-watching thoughts:

EMAIL THIS

Comments

The debate was seven angry, warmongering, dragons, breathing fire and making assertions, but citing no facts in support of their positions v. the only sane person in national politics today, Ron Paul. The debate came down to Huckabee's concession that Iraq was a "mistake" but we should stay and compound the mistake for "honor":

"Can honor set a leg? No. Or an arm? No. Or take away the grief of a wound? No. Honor hath no skill in surgery then? No. What is honor? A word . . ."

William Shakespeare, Henry IV, Part One, Act V, Scene 1.

Buddy, Houston, Texas (Sent Thursday, September 06, 2007 10:56 AM)

Mike G., Republicans are "thirsting" for a pro-war candidate? That one really has me shaking my head. I am totally flabbergasted and left speechless.

nuanced (Sent Thursday, September 06, 2007 11:00 AM)

The debates remind me of "Twelve Angry Men", a jury that wanted to vote 11-1 to convict a young man. Ron Paul is Henry Fonda's character. Paul is fighting with truth on his side and eventually watch the the other six (now seven) change. Really - watch the change take place about the war. Why? They are all unelectable if they continue to stand behind war as our foreign policy. The latest argument to staying in Iraq seems to be to defend a government's guilty national honor (of our leaders - not the military). I am insulted that Huckabee thinks we should all apologize and share in the big mistake. Free men do not give blind allegiance to a government. Why do nations "under God" have to invade other nations under false pretenses?

Another donation is going to Ron Paul.

Ken S., Charlotte, NC (Sent Thursday, September 06, 2007 11:16 AM)

Last night's debate showed why there's been much discontentment with the republican choices. I have been hoping for a Newt'08 campaign but that doesn't look likely at this point.

I guess Fred Thompson was technically the winner --- anytime you're not at an event & you're the opening discussion topic you must be doing something right.

However, of those in attendance: Huckabee, McCain & Giuliani were most impressive. Hunter did well & Romney was okay. Tancredo & Brownback are out their league & it was quite clear. Ron Paul, while he had some vocal support, vocal support for those who shot back at his talking points was just as prominent.

http://thecourier.typepad.com/rightonthemark/

Mark A Shrider, Findlay, Ohio (Sent Thursday, September 06, 2007 11:23 AM)

RON PAUL WON THE DEBATE HANDS DOWN!

GO RON PAUL! GO RON PAUL! GOD BLESS RON PAUL!
RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2008!
Best Ron Paul video - (Reply: WRONG!…Best Presidential Candidacy Video EVER!!!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFfdB5OzlyQ

chris lawton (Sent Thursday, September 06, 2007 12:05 PM)

I though Romney looked pretty good. You don't like him, apparently.

Dr. LDC (Sent Thursday, September 06, 2007 12:51 PM)

I love how the Paul supporters think a non-scientific poll that allows people to vote multiple times actually means anything... they're so cute. It reminds me of my elementary school days. :)

Nathan E. (Sent Thursday, September 06, 2007 1:39 PM)

Ron Paul is an isolationist and is the most myopic politician I've seen in 50 years--those that support him are obviously not versed in history. Ron Paul says we have no business being in Iraq but using the same logic, we should never have fought in the European or Pacific theatres of WWII, or WWI before that. Following his logic of nonintervention, we'd all be speaking German now and there'd be absolutely no Constitution to defend!

Ron Paul says he supports the constitution, but one of the constitution's main provisions is defense of the nation with a military. But if you have to fight the battles on your own soil (and believe me, they would come), you've done a terrible job of protecting the nation. It is far better to fight destructive battles where they don’t impact your nation and its infrastructure.

If Ron Paul’s elected, we'll simply lose WW IV, which started in earnest with 9/11. The prospects of a Ron Paul presidency are no less horrifying than islamofascism, as his approach would hand them an easy victory over western civilization and those of us that are left would be eliminated.

Ron Paul did not win the debate last night, since his main support base consists of relatively young people that communicate by text messaging. As a consequence, the Fox polls are biased and pretty much useless.

Galen Haugh, Idaho Falls, ID (Sent Thursday, September 06, 2007 1:51 PM)

I agree with Ron Paul's earlier statements that we were attacked becuase we are over meddling in the middle east. Why? BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT BIN LADEN SAID. Are we that dense? No wonder ron paul gets angry. Read Bin laden's declaration of war on pbs.com. Bring the troops home.

chareli chang, League City TX (Sent Thursday, September 06, 2007 1:56 PM)

I never bought into the Powell "Pottery Barn" line of thought that if we break it we buy it. Implicit in that reasoning is that Iraq was whole, unbroken before we went in. For anyone, especially any Republican to accept that premise is to absolutely discredit any rationale for going into Iraq in the first place, something that 70%+ of the public and 98% of Congress agreed we needed to do, and were NOT misled into. Iraq was horribly broken under Saddam, he destroyed his nation from within, it was a totalitarian, repressive regime that stole the lives and dignity of it's citizens using torture and thuggery to stoke hatreds within. And it gave aid and shelter to global terrorists: paid $25,000 to families of Palestinian suicide terrorists, welcomed Al Qaida's Al Zarqawi from Afghanistan after we drove the Taliban out, hosted the terrorist who pushed the wheelchair of an American off a cruise ship to his death in the Mediterranean , etc.

Polls show high public disapproval for the war, but they remain nearly evenly divided on if we were right to do so. Polls reflect dissatisfaction with the execution of it, not the rationale for it, and reflects skepticism that we still can get it right. Give appearances that Iraq can be handled competently and support will rise again, and Democrats linked to the anti-war machine will be the big losers.

Huckabee's comments accepting the Pottery Barn analogy may help Senator's buy time from their constituents to let them stay the course for the current administration, but are a sure loser when presented to voters deciding who will lead the next administration. We didn't break Iraq, but we are helping to put it together. Americans will elect a leader who stands for the honor of our actions, doesn't apologize for them, unless the choice is between two candidates who agree we acted dishonorably in Iraq, and one will extract us from it immediately while the other pleads for forgiveness and to see it through for honor's sake. Giuliani and McCain are the only ones who get it and can connect that message to voters.

Mike G, Denver, Colorado (Sent Thursday, September 06, 2007 2:04 PM)

Robert Thicke,

I got this snippet from http://www.ncsl.org

"On May 11, 2005, President Bush signed into law the “REAL ID Act of 2005,” which was attached to the “Emergency Supplemental Appropriation for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005” (H.R. 1268, P.L. 109-13). Title II of REAL ID—“Improved Security for Driver’s License’ and Personal Identification Cards”—repeals the provisions of a December 2004 law that established a cooperative state-federal process to create federal standards for driver’s licenses and instead directly imposes prescriptive federal driver’s license standards."

Marcellus Belleville, IL (Sent Thursday, September 06, 2007 2:07 PM)

John from Mingo raises an interesting point. Long before there was a Bush,or an Iraq War,there was Islamic nations with Iran at the top of the list attempting to gain nuclear weapons under the auspices of the AQ Khan network. Iran will be the next to go nuclear after Pakistan. Further,the desire is to gain long-range ICBMs[IAEA,Remarks,Mohammed El-Baradei,March,2006]. The only use whatever for such missles to is launch these at the West,including the US. The rhetoric from the Pakistanis anti-Musharref hardliners allied with bin Laden and those Shias with Ahmedinjezad actually believe that these can survive a first-strike response by the US,and that sailing nukes over to New York is worth the effort once the ''Jew'' has been dealt with.
Then there is the curious admittance by the captured German jihadists bearing ''hatred''against the US that specifically cites the German/NATO/US involvement in Afghanistan.[DER SPIEGAL Sept.03,2007] This raises another immediate observation. If we are handing al Qaeda a ''recruiting tool''in Iraq,how are we NOT doing the SAME thing in Afghanistan? [thus do the ''just war''principles of liberals nominally arrayed against Bush and Iraq collide]. Further,we now have Islamic sources [Jihad and Terrorism Studies Project] that have utilized statements made by the chief Democrat candidates regarding a Pakistani invasion that have been used to whip up anti-American fervour and recruitment in that nation and others. Who knows how many new Jihadis were formed out of the mouth of Obama?
Finally,how do ''law enforcement''techniques which were a patent failure during the 1990s,even begin to deal with the next stage of Islamic terrorism, that of the nuclear bomb? The jihadists will move from the usage of conventional weapons and bomb-making materials into a nuclear region with the lives of millions at stake. Think i'm wrong? Ask the IAEA,or the liberal Federation of Concerned Scientists, anti-nuclear and proliferation organizations, or the former and current PMs/presidents of England,Sweden,Holland,Germany,France,Italy,Belgium and other nations who see the pandoras box that was opened by the Khan network.
The next president,even apart from Iraq[where even withdrawl will bring no relief save temporary,[see:Above],will have to deal with refusing Pakistan and its dozens of nuclear missles to the bin Laden network and will have to consider how to deal with a rapidly nuclear-armed Iran. We will stay in the Middle East.

Lee Holmes (Sent Thursday, September 06, 2007 4:00 PM)

Of course Ron Paul is going to get crapped on by the media - whether Fox or CNN - just like they all smear Pat Buchanan. Their little world is endangered by the inevitable earthquake of reform that must occur - an earthquake that our modern prophets Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan are trying to prepare us for. But we revile them because they speak uncomfortable truth. Tancredo is another prophet. He knows that multiculturalism and open borders are creating a future cataclysm.

R LaBonte (Sent Thursday, September 06, 2007 5:32 PM)

Freetrader:

Congressman Paul is not a protectionist, he is a constitutionalist, and a consistent advocate of free trade. He is a supporter of the Austrian School of Economics, the most free-market school in modern econ... Congressman Paul had the best responses in the debate last night, and two of my friends, until last night supporters of Thompson, text messaged with me to FOX in support of the Congressman.

Vote foe a strict constructionist of the Constitution in '08! The president is the chief executive, he enforces the law... should he know the "supreme law"? The Constitution of the United States.

Benjamin Kuipers, Scottsdale, AZ (Sent Thursday, September 06, 2007 6:40 PM)

Romney, tough night, but not a campaign-ender. Giulianni looked ridiculous in his post debate interview, and contradicted himself again right there. Huckabee's a nice guy, but patriotic rhetoric won't solve real problems, it just sounds good to the party base. McCain looked good, but he's just not the contender he used to be. Tancredo, that guy needs more press time, he's got ideas. Hunter and Brownback are irrelevant. And finally, Ron Paul: Will the Ron Paul revolutionaries (all 17 of you) just quit with the media conspiracy theories. Do you know how crazy you sound? National polls don't show him leading anywhere. You've got a great web support thing happening, but apparently you're only talking to each other. Nobody outside of your circle really plans to vote for him.

TW (Sent Thursday, September 06, 2007 8:25 PM)

Huckabee actually uses two meanings of the word honor. One, to describe the feeling you get for protecting your country, and the other to describe "not being embarassed" for admitting wrong. By the time he is finished talking, you are left feeling that he has made some sort of point -- but he has not. He thinks as long as we stay 'in war' then we are staying 'out of wrong.' And by not admitting guilt then he can pretty much justify staying there indefinately -- afterall, since we broke it then we must fix it! Can't argue with that twisted logic. What is really appalling,though, is that he has the gall to insinuate a causal link between the war being wrong and an automatic shame/dishonor to the troops, thereby bringing fault to Paul for even suggesting we should leave. Not to worry, though... According to Huckabee, we are relieved from trying to sort out right from wrong because that must be "left to the historians." (Or anytime after the '08 Election!)

Troy, Santa Barbara, CA (Sent Friday, September 07, 2007 3:08 AM)

"Let’s start with the winners:"

The clear winner was Ron Paul! You are really out of touch by thinking Giuliani was a winner here.

Mike Green Bay Wi. (Sent Friday, September 07, 2007 1:50 PM)

Ron Paul dangerous? I find it interesting that a candidate that believes in adhering to the basis of the law of our land, the Constitution, would be considered "dangerous". (LOL) Just shows how far from it we are.

Frankly, anyone who is not seeing through the media bias at this point in time is sound asleep. They arbitrarily define who are the 1st and 2nd tier candidates without any factual basis for their statements. No primaries have been conducted and they ignore poll results totally yet we already have 1st and 2nd tier candidates.

Additionally, the candidates are always arranged with their choices in the center and the ones that wish to marginalize placed at the ends. The camera seems to focus at the center ignoring the "2nd tier" candidates.

Is America so easily led around by the media manipulations that they are buying into this stuff? I certainly hope not. I say listen to candidates and what they actually say and represent. Who talks to the issues that matter the most to you? Who makes the most sense on the issues?

America is in big trouble. Our economy is a house of cards built on a mountain of debt. According to the latest GAO Budget Update- September 2007 our economy is unsustainable largely because of the unfunded liabilities of SS and Medicare and the baby boomer retirees. If we don't make major changes we are tanking. The dollar is dropping steadily and our debt is mounting just as steadily.

Ignore the media manipulations and make your own mind up. After all, look at the mess we are in today in Iraq and the media's role in that pack of lies. Think they will suddenly be honest during an election campaign? Not!

TI (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 1:21 AM)

<< Previous

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=346995