SIMI VALLEY, Calif., May 4, 2007
GOP Dark Horses Fail To Gallop In Debate
Lesser-Known Republican Candidates Don't Grab Spotlight In First Primary Debate
-
Play CBS Video Video Greenfield On GOP Debate CBS News senior political correspondent Jeff Greenfield speaks with Harry Smith about the GOP debate, weighing in on issues challenging some of the 2008 Republican hopefuls.
-
Video GOP Hopefuls Face Off Ten Republican presidential hopefuls took the stage at the Reagan Library in California to debate heated topics such as abortion, stem-cell research and the war in Iraq. Sandra Hughes reports.
-
Video GOP Candidates Invoke Reagan Jeff Greenfield reports that the theme of Thursday night's Republican presidential debate was "What Would Reagan Do" - and not because the debate was held at the Ronald Reagan Library.
-
The bottom line after the first Republican primary presidential debate: 90 minutes, 10 candidates, no knockouts, no big changes. (AP)
Despite the 100 laptops urgently typing away here in the press room, it’s hard to say much really happened at the first Republican presidential primary debate.
The early campaign's Big Three — McCain, Romney and Rudy — all performed well and avoided any deadly mistakes.
None of the dark horse candidates broke through, although several performed credibly and probably increased interest in their campaigns.
Each of the Big Three had their strong moments.
John McCain made the biggest strategic move of the night, reaching back out to the center with a blunt appraisal of the Bush administration’s many mistakes in the Iraq war and expressing strong support for stem cell research.
While these issues are not GOP primary orthodoxy, McCain is never going to be the perfect Republican base candidate. By reaching back to his reformist, centrist roots, a feisty McCain clearly is making a move to reconnect with independent voters.
I think this is a shrewd move, because the authentic McCain is the most impressive McCain to voters, even conservative primary voters.
After a troubling several weeks, McCain is showing his campaign can adjust and improve.
Rudy Giuliani integrated his record of New York City successes into current national problems. But his performance was not as strong as his polling position.
Mitt Romney was smooth and probably won some new admirers for his presidential style.
That said, each had a stumble or two.
McCain had a Yosemite Sam moment early in the debate as he vowed to deposit Osama bin Laden into the gates of hell.
Rudy got tied up in the sharp end of abortion politics with a cloudy answer about his position on Roe v. Wade. He’ll need to get a lot crisper to survive the campaign.
Mitt Romney fumbled a bit on a very predictable question about his evolution on the abortion issue, essentially repeating his answer twice in an awkward loop.
Among the other candidates, Sam Brownback had a particularly strong night. He talked with passion and elegance about the social issues that are the backbone of his candidacy.
Surprisingly, Congressman Tom Tancredo didn’t hammer the powerful immigration issue.
The bottom line: 90 minutes, 10 candidates, no knockouts, no big changes.
Mike Murphy is a Republican political consultant who in the past has advised the campaigns of former Gov. Mitt Romney, Sen. John McCain and former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson. He is also a screenwriter.
By Mike Murphy
TM & © 2007 The Politico & Politico.com, a division of Allbritton Communications Company.
| We cover politics with enterprise, style, and impact. |
More From Politico
Add a Comment See all 54 Comments
- The Pentagon can get war funding from different sources and the Democrats know it. Apparently you do not. Do you actually think that congress could really leave our soldiers high and dry. I am not so naive to think so. And by the way, didntinhale, maybe you have listened to people like Annie get your guns Coulter and Rush to war Limbaugh too long.
- Reply to this comment
- @ Posted by Rochest at 05:04 PM : May 04, 2007
Have you ever read the story about the ant and the grasshopper?
Yes, i am that hard hearted that i would rather invest my own money for bigger dividends than donate it to the government for them to give to people who have no foresight what-so-ever.
Furthermore, studies show that when the government collects fewer taxes the citizens tend to donate more to charities. - Reply to this comment
- The Democrats cut funding. Nixon had no choice but to pull troops out. If Congress cuts funds for Iraq, does that mean Bush surrendered? The way liberals re-write history, in 10 years it probably will.
Posted by diverinnl at 09:28 PM : May 04, 2007
Actually we cut funding to the government of South Vietnam, not to the troops, so Nixon still could have kept the troops there if he really wanted to. The difference is that Nixon finally accepted what Bush already knows about Iraq, the war was lost. Unlike Nixon though Bush wants to keep this losing cause going until after he's out of office to try to cover his as*s, no matter how many of our troops die in the process of saving his ego. Read some history, 'k? - Reply to this comment
- Just a suggestion about a good GOP option.
Hillary Rodham Clinton w/ Samuel L Jackson as VP? Hillary is going to be shifting to the right so the nation can be under the guidance the American Margaret Thatcher and guy with that wallet the one that says *** ******** They should be just the shot in the arm the GOP needs, plus it should drive out that nasty NeoCon infection nicely - Reply to this comment
- Just a suggestion about a good GOP option.
Hillary Rodham Clinton w/ Samuel L Jackson as VP? Hillary is going to be shifting to the right so the nation can be under the guidance the American Margaret Thatcher and guy with that wallet the one that says *** ******** They should be just the shot in the arm the GOP needs, plus it should drive out that nasty NeoCon infection nicely - Reply to this comment
- Meanwhile, no less than THREE presidential candidates, Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo and Mike Huckabee said they don't even believe in evolution!
Fortunately for all concerned, the "In your opinion, is the world flat?" question remained unasked.... - Reply to this comment
- My favorite quote of the day:
"Democrats were handling the Vietnam war. Nixon surrendered."
Posted by bigsk8fan at 05:37 PM : May 04, 2007
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
The Democrats cut funding. Nixon had no choice but to pull troops out. If Congress cuts funds for Iraq, does that mean Bush surrendered? The way liberals re-write history, in 10 years it probably will. - Reply to this comment
- What a pitiful group. 10 candidates and not a keeper in the bunch. Sad..
- Reply to this comment
- This just in from the AP, the GOP's right-wing base is moving to fund stem cell research in hopes of cloning Ronald Reagan in time for the '08 elections.
Their rallying cry will be "Clone one for the Gipper!" - Reply to this comment
- As far as I could tell, last night's debate gave us the top ten reasons not to vote for a Republican in '08.
- Reply to this comment
- I think it is funny that in their efforts to "Run to Reagan", all of the GOP candidates run at top speed PAST 2 Bushes.
I wonder why none of these guys wants to be the next Bush.
Hummmmm...... very funny. - Reply to this comment
- "Everyone knows that blacks belong in the fields and women in the kitchen." Posted by Processorr2
I should have guessed from your previous postings that you are an ignorant RACIST and SEXIST. That makes you a typical Rebublican.
"A democrat congress running the Iraq war would be like a democrat congress running the Vietnam war." Posted by processor2
What are you talking about? To really foul up a war takes a Republican. Democrats were handling the Vietnam war. Nixon surrendered. You neocons have said quite clearly recently that anyone disagreeing with the White House when going to war is anti-patriotic. That makes the loser of the Vietnam War Nixon, a Republican.
Ike was the Republican who ran the losing war in Korea. And Republican President resisted the Spanish American War until Liberal Hearst Publication Newspapers got America into a war fever pitch.
What do you expect? Bush is your ideal of a War Leader. This guy flew combat sorties safely within US borders during Vietnam. And usually he was drunk. Cheney didn't fare any better when actually having a chance to serve in military operations.
It took Democrats and Liberals to win WWII (FDR), WWI (Wilson), Civil War (Lincoln), and Revolution (Washington). Don't think you can do as much complaining about Liberals and now take credit for Lincoln. Too late Neocon! - Reply to this comment
The best candidates that the Democraps can come up with are a black and woman. lol
Everyone knows that blacks belong in the fields and women in the kitchen.- Reply to this comment
- Bend over for a $ummer of $4.00 a gallon gas.
You GOP whiners can talk about big government all you want but the reason that Bill left the White House at 80% + approval was because he didn't $CREW the MIDDLE CLASS.
I remember gas at .77 cents a gallon in 1998!!!
Tell me how a GOP Cronies at the oil companies have helped us????
Oh that's right - by posting record profits and taking away our disposable income.
BUSH= GOP = $4.00 GAS = IRAQ = Bend OVER!!! - Reply to this comment
- capnboost
so you want to keep your money and invest it and pass the wealth down to your kids. well have you asked them if they want all of it even if it means Lots of starving seniors? After all that is what the social program was put in place to prevent. are you really that hard hearted that you can say I've got mine screw you! You really can't share the Some of the pile you've created. - Reply to this comment
- The best candidates for today's DemoCrap party would be Lenin & Marx.
The old democrat party of:
"Ask NOT what your country can do for you, but rather what YOU can do for your country"
no longer exists.
And instead has been replaced by the concept of Big Government.
...
PS
A democrat congress running the Iraq war would be like a democrat congress running the Vietnam war.
We all know what a mistake that was
... - Reply to this comment
- The best candidates for today's DemoCrap party would be Lenin & Marx.
The old democrat party of:
"Ask NOT what your country can do for you, but rather what YOU can do for your country"
no longer exists.
And instead has been replaced by the concept of Big Government.
...
PS
A democrat congress running the Iraq war would be like a democrat congress running the Vietnam war.
We all know what a mistake that was
... - Reply to this comment
- None of these Republican candidates, except Ron Paul, are listening to the American electorate. It is sick to death of this Iraq war and will vote for the candidate(s) that hold out the best promise for getting us out of Iraq in 2008. On the other hand, the Democratic candidates all (as far as I know)reflect the will of the American people and will withdraw as quickly as possible. Personally, I do not like a system where the Presidency and Congress are dominated by one party. But, if the Republicans stick to their position of no withdrawal, they are in danger of becoming extinct as a national party force. I thought they were smarter than that.
- Reply to this comment
- I'm not even going to start paying attention to this stuff until October-November. If we're not careful, these b*astards will start campaigning right after the elections. I don't want that! I'm sick of this election already!!
- Reply to this comment
- The "LOSER's BALL" was entertaining, as these no-chance-in-he** candidates try to hide from the past 6 years of the most corrupt, despotic, maniacal government ever - all run by Republicans.
One cannot deny that this bunch of geezer candidates is ill-suited to hold ANY public office. Stroll-through-Baghdad Loony McCain, flip-flop-- flop-flip Romney, less-than-empty-suit Guiliani, and a bunch of also-rans that have already been forgotten.
Only the feeble-minded that voted TWICE for the WORST-PRESIDENT-EVER could possibly find anything of value in this bunch. For the rest of humanity, this "debate" was a laugh riot to rival a fox faux news program. - Reply to this comment
