Category Archives: Republicans

CNN GOP Debate: The Meta-Perspective

Elections 2008, Journalism, Media, Republicans

From a journalistic perspective, the last CNN GOP debate was an especially corrupted and corrupting process.
What do I mean? The best to date was the ABC debate moderated by Old School journalist, Charles Gibson. Evenhanded, tough, fare, no favorites—he and his colleague were there to get answers for the viewers, not to choose the frontrunners or make celebrity appearances. Which is what Anderson Vanderbilt Cooper is all about.
The less said about he and Jim VandeHei, the blogger cognoscente from “Politico,” and Janet Hook of the Los Angeles Times—moderators all—the better.
There were four candidates present, not two. Tasked with the assignment, journalists with a modicum of integrity and intellectual curiosity would have made sure that by the end of the evening, viewers had a good idea of the positions all four held. Instead, Cooper and his colleagues zeroed in on Romney and McCain and remained there. On the few occasions Cooper and Company turned to them, Paul and Huckabee were granted very little time to respond—Paul even less than Huckabee. Moreover, because four contenders were present and two were ignored, the meta-message was that of contempt—and arrogance on the part of the moderators.

Rush Limbaugh has offered a coruscating critique of McCain as the anti-conservative, yet Huckabee was framed by Cooper as the main object of Limbaugh’s attack. This was a sort of Straw Man Argument. Huckabee is not the frontrunner. If Limbaugh’s renunciation of any candidate ought to have been brought up for the benefit of the voters, it is his root-and-branch rejection of McCain. But that bit of dreck, Cooper, wanted to spare his man McCain, who is lionized by liberals.
The debate has stuck in my mind as richly revealing of the workings of the media, content and process alike.
To be continued.

Update (February 3): Readers have pointed to other solid interviews conducted over the months with the candidates, such as at the dank corner of MTV cable, of all places. I would add the Google or Yahoo executive’s interview with Paul—and the others. Fine, informed, intelligent stuff. This demonstrates, once again, that if in search for genius, always look outside what I call the Media-Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex, sycophants and parasites all.
This is also why you ought to never blindly follow the media’s constant abuse of Mitt Romney, clearly of a far superior mind and mien than the miserable, mummified McCain. I say this as a “Paulbearer.” But more about Romney—a tremendously accomplished man in his own right—latter. A run outdoors, eating, ironing, and book writing will keep us apart for the next few hours.

The Measure Of McCain

Elections 2008, Intelligence, John McCain, Republicans

Steve Sailer has IQ on his mind, and so should we:
“Will McCain, who finished 894th out of 899 at the Naval Academy and who lost five jets, return competence to the White House? To paraphrase Oscar Wilde (and, no, Oscar was never a fighter pilot), to lose one plane over Vietnam may be regarded as a heroic tragedy; to lose five planes here and there looks like carelessness.
More seriously, what’s the largest organization that McCain has ever managed? And how did he do at it? And is he suddenly going to learn how to be an excellent manager at age 72?
I’m not looking forward to having to choose between one politician who can’t be criticized because he was a POW and to question him is to not support the troops and another candidate who can’t be criticized because he’s black and the perpetually fragile self-esteems of 40 million African-Americans are assumed to depend upon everybody saying nice things about him. The point is not that McCain and Obama aren’t fine fellows, it’s that in a country of 300,000,000, we ought to expect the Presidential candidates to be worthy individuals and that yet they still must undergo corrosive analysis.”
posted by Ilana Mercer on 02.03.08 @ 1:30 am

Update: Readers have pointed to other solid interviews conducted over the months with the candidates, such as MTV’s, of all places. I would add the Google or Yahoo’s executive’s interview with Paul—and the others. Fine stuff. This demonstrates, once again, that if in search for genius, always look outside what I call the Media-Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex. Sycophants and parasites all.

Updated: Pat Buchanan’s Pat Observation

America, Conservatism, Critique, Energy, Free Markets, Reason, Republicans, The Zeitgeist

“We are an unserious people in a serious time.”
The column is “Tapped Out Nation.”
Pat’s right, with the exception of the economy, and in particular, energy “dependence” (it’s called trade) and trade deficits (it’s called buying more from certain sources than we sell to them).
Unlike most commentators (other than yours truly), Pat, at least, is a passionate writer.

Update: I didn’t know Rush Limbaugh once, “In the 1992 primaries… helped boost conservative firebrand Pat Buchanan against the incumbent, George H.W. Bush.”
“Respek,” as Ali G. would say.
Alas, there’s nothing an overnight stay in the Lincoln bedroom won’t “cure”; Rush’s tenure as a Bush apologist began shortly after such a restful night: “When Bush secured the nomination, the president mended fences by inviting the talk-show host for an overnight stay in” said Bedroom.”

Updated: Précis: Republicans Debate in New Hampshire

Constitution, Elections 2008, IMMIGRATION, Individual Rights, Republicans

I haven’t watched the Democratic debate. I have zero interest in that lot. Their policy prescriptions exist on a continuum of socialism. While this is true of most Republicans, there is still something of an argument as to whether it ought to be so— an argument owed mostly to Ron Paul’s injection of laissez faire into the process.
Here are one or two salient points I’ve gleaned from the ABC– and Fox-conducted debates with the Republican contenders:
If you exclude Ron Paul (as Fox Noise did) and set-aside the war (I can’t), then Fred Thompson is the more authentically conservative candidate.
On immigration, Thompson has been the only front-runner to address the deleterious effects of mass illegal immigration on the social fabric of this country. Thompson is also the only contender to have ever uttered a word with respect to the American people’s interests rather than those of the illegal immigrants, whom McCain keep calling “God’s children.” Again: more than the rest, Thompson sounded as though he was vying to lead Americans, not Mexicans.
The white-noise makers of Fox took a page out of ABC’s broadcasting book, and allowed a freer-flowing exchange between the windbags. During this Fox free-for-all, it became abundantly clear that McCain, Huckabee and Giuliani essentially support amnesty; they just obfuscate by calling it something else.
McCain, especially, lies about the Z-Visa, and Huckabee continued to defend the rights of children of illegal immigrants to receive what American kids can’t. Other than Thompson, this lot is untrustworthy on stopping the ongoing illegal influx. Mitt Romney is somewhat incoherent, so I find it hard to make out his positions.
He and Giuliani are extremely repetitive, robotic, rehearsed and unbelievable in their plugs for themselves. I have to say again that Thompson spoke more naturally and organically. His mention of the constitutional scheme along the debate—the delimited and limited powers of the various branches of government, and my favorite, the 10th amendment—meant a lot to me.
It appears that an American president must have a healthcare plan—and a plan for almost everything else. Thus, I’m not clear what is Giuliani’s policy prescription for pacifying the people on this front, but he was best able to articulate free-market principles.
In expressing simple, but fundamental, concepts associated with government as opposed to private-run endeavors, Giuliani bested Paul on health care. (On why Paul didn’t do well, unfortunately, in a follow-up post.)
Later then.

Updated: as our reader points out below in the Comments Section, Thompson did appeal to utilitarian “principles” to justify government taking. If you believe a man owns what he produces, then you can never remove it from him without his permission.
Here is the Constitutional lesson I liked, sealed with the contemptible bit that ought to be bowdlerized (with soap and water):

MR. THOMPSON: “Everyone has kind of a wish list. I think it’s most important, though, that a president of the United States understand that our principles — our first principles are based on the Constitution of the United States, understanding the nature of our government, the checks and the balances, the separation of powers that our founding fathers set up a long time ago. There’s a reason for that. They knew about human nature. They learned from the wisdom of the ages. They set the government up according to that.
They set the powers out in the Constitution of the federal government and they basically said, ‘If the powers aren’t delineated in this document, they don’t exist.’ And then we got the 10th Amendment that says if they’re not delineated, they belong to the people and to the states. That’s fundamental to everything else. [All good up until here, where the bad begins.—IM] And then we grew from that principles, such as a dollar belongs in the pocket of the person that earned it unless the government can make a case that it can spend it better; you don’t spend money that you don’t have; and you certainly don’t spend your grandchildren’s money with debt that they’re not at the table when the decision has been made to spend it.”