GOP Debate

I watched part of the GOP presidential debate last night.
Clearly, ten candidates is way too many participants for a general issue debate. The organizers should either split the field in half and have two debates (not a practical solution) or they should limit the issues (e.g., a foreign policy debate) so the candidates can offer more substance.
This is pretty funny:

President Bush’s name was invoked by Republican candidates only once during yesterday’s 90-minute debate, in response to a question about Scooter Libby’s pardon. By comparison, Ronald Reagan’s name was cited 19 times.

The Bush record was the elephant in the room, so to speak.
I thought the moderators had a few interesting questions which got at the big-government conservative/libertarian divide. I also think the show of hand questions can be used as an effective change of pace. But note to moderator: if you are going to ask for a show of hands, take the time to acknowledge who is raising his hand. It’s pointless exercise if viewers don’t get to see who has his hand shot. A two second side view of the candidates doesn’t cut it (this happened in the Democratic debate, too).
Speaking of pointless, how was this Chris Mathews question:

But let me ask you about something else that might be a negative in the upcoming campaign. Seriously.
Would it be good for America to have Bill Clinton back living in the White House?

A stupid and loaded (“negative”) question. What a waste of our time with that silliness. A GOP candidate would just as soon burn an American flag on stage as answer “yes” to that question. What’s the point of asking? How is that supposed to enlighten the audience on the candidates’ philosphy?

Street Fight

In case you’ve missed it, MSNBC is televising a Republican presidential debate tonight. (They’ve got a nifty debate countdown clock to remind you, lest eleven hours of pre-debate coverage isn’t enough.)
Yesterday, Chris Matthews was warming up for his big role as debate moderator. Here he asks Rudy Giuliani’s campaign manager and Mit Romney’s campaign spokesperson the question on every voter’s mind:

MATTHEWS: Who would win a street fight? Rudy Giuliani–just think of a street fight now over in Queens somewhere. It is a dark night, it is about 2:00 in the morning. Two guys are out behind the building, right? On a vacant lot. Rudy Giuliani or President Ahmadinejad, who would win that fight?
. . .
MATTHEWS: If he wins that notion, he is the next president. That is one to look for. Who is tougher than Ahmadinejad, because he is our biggest worry right now.
. . .
MATTHEWS: I want to ask you this, do you think Romney has got–can he take the–roll up the sleeves and get out there and have a street fight with Ahmadinejad? Is he tough enough to beat Rudy at that notion of being tough?
GINSBERG: Well, he would never fight Rudy. Yes, he is tough enough to win the fight with the foreign leader, sure. Because he is a man of principle and a man of intellect.
MATTHEWS: Can’t you pronounce the name Ahmadinejad?
GINSBERG: I can most of the time. But not all of the time.

Yes, if there is one issue all voters hold in common, it’s the 2 a.m. street fight question. Given the frequency that world leaders meet in back alleys, America needs a tough fighter. That’s why the Draft Mike Tyson for President movement is gaining such traction.
Journalism at its finest.

Four Years Of Progress

In this segment, Keith Olbermann examines how we got where we’re at in Iraq:

This pretty well sums up four years of “progress” reports:

OLBERMANN: Progress, year after year, in almost mathematically precise increments, never quite enough to justify leaving, always just enough to justify staying, because there is always another milestone to look forward to, a turning point beyond which victory might lie.

Indeed. For four years we’ve been on the verge of turning the corner–except we never actually turn in another direction. We’re looping around a giant circle which has taken us nowhere. It’s as if our efforts are adrift in Iraq, without a plan or plan.
Wait, what’s that you say, Mr. Bush?

And as you know, my position is clear — I’m the commander guy.

Oh, how reassuring.

The Newest History

When I hear some of the revisionist spin being served out these days, I wonder if (1) I’ve been living a bad dream the past six years, or (2) some people are delusional enough to believe this kind of thing. Here’s what Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) said on Friday (via Think Progress):

Inhofe, speaking to the press before Cheney’s arrival, lambasted Democrats for Thursday’s Senate vote to begin withdrawal from Iraq by Oct. 1 and the press for “mischaracterizing” the reasons for U.S. involvement.
“The whole idea of weapons of mass destruction was never the issue, yet they keep trying to bring this up,” Inhofe said.
. . .
Pressed for an explanation, Inhofe said weapons of mass destruction were “incidental” to the decision to invade Iraq.
“The media made that the issue because they knew Saddam Hussein had used weapons of mass destruction. So we knew that they were there. But that was incidental to the fact we were going after terrorist camps.”

Uh, right. So in the fall of 2002, when the Bush administration suggested that mushroom clouds might rise over American cities, it wasn’t really talking about the threat of WMDs, was it? That’s media spin. Bush, Rice, et a.l were actually offering a meteorological discussion on cloud formations. Get it straight, Democrats.