News and Commentary on Politics, Media and Culture

Important Note: - The Washington Post is missing key parts of the GOP debate in their transcript. Use the Wall Street Journal Source instead.

I was watching Hardball with Chris Matthews when I started this article and Matthews was trying his best to make Thompson look bad both in the debate as well as after. Norah O’Donnell seemed the most open minded of the Hardball panel while Fineman, Chuck Todd and Matthews took repeated potshots at a candidate they seem to dislike and perhaps fear.

It seems odd to me that they would be swinging so hard for Thompson. Thus I think they might just be afraid of him. In fact Matthews tried to slip him up during the debate in what analysts are characterizing as side stepping a potential presidential run ending gaffe had he not come up with the name of Canada’s Prime Minister. So Matthews, who probably had to look up Prime Minister Steven Harper’s name before the debate, looked especially stupid and petty when Thompson came right back at him with an answer.

Mr. Matthews: Let me ask you, Senator. This is the first presidential debate up near the border. We’re only a few minutes from the Canadian border. We’re surrounded — in fact, very close to our strongest trading partner. We buy more from Canada than we do from China. We sell them about four times as much as we buy from them.

They’re incredibly friendly with us although they don’t share our foreign policy.

Tell me about the prime minister of Canada. How would you get along with — who is the prime minister of Canada?

Mr. Thompson: Harper.

Mr. Matthews: OK, tell me about him.

Mr. Thompson: Prime Minister Harper.

This is what I don’t get. Thompson’s critics have been coming at him for being unprepared and not ready for prime time. So when he finally does debate and handles himself well the criticism is that he didn’t soar. Well duh. The debate was constrained by a format that is focused on the economy and most of the candidates towed the fiscal conservative line on taxes and trade. Nobody really soared because there is not much room to waver on the problems with rampant spending, it needs to be stopped, deficit, it needs to be cut, free trade, it needs to be free, tax cuts, there needs to be more, tax reform, it needs to be reformed.

Nonetheless, the actors on Hardball were continuing to bash Thompson after the debate but it seemed a bit contrived. For example, the following is what stands for deep analysis by NBC Political Director Chuck Todd as he played off of Matthews’ allusion to his belief that Thompson was uncomfortable.

“Always the supporting actor, never the lead actor”.

Deep. Sounds kind of scripted to me. Of course Todd could just as easily have been thinking about Hardball. Todd also continued his criticism of Thompson on his NBC blog but I notice that he is a bit more objective when Matthews isn’t at his side. I attribute that to the pack mentality where they all want to be in the same club when together.

But it’s important to go back to Thompson because this debate was about him. Bottom line: he’s got a lot of work to do. He did get better but I doubt he quieted critics; He was more on top of the issues than some may have tought but was he really a frontrunner when it comes to knowing what the issues are? That’s the BIGGER question.

Can someone get Todd a spell checker, tought? (now I’m picking)

Todd, Matthews and Fineman also took Giuliani and Romney to task for sparring over the constitutionality of the line item veto saying that they sounded more like the characterization of democrats than republicans that typically veer from debating legalities. Huh? That makes about as much sense as Matthews’ use of the newly invented word, “litigative”. Fineman corrected Matthews with “litigious” in what may have been the most sensible words that came out of either persons mouth during the post-debate program. Of course line item vetoes are going to end up in court if one ever get resurrected. It went to the Supreme Court once already and politicians aren’t going to let it sit if it comes back again. As the libs say, sheesh!

The upside with all of the liberal claws in Thompson’s back is that I think they are scared of him. In fact I think they are downright petrified because he doesn’t have the negatives that Queen Hillary does, he has name recognition, he isn’t as far to the left as Giuliani and he seemed to stand pretty well on his own despite the end run that Matthews took at him. This afternoon was just the start for the Thompson campaign and a respectable showing fared well as I imagine will be reflected in his numbers. Note that Real Clear Politics currently has Thompson at 20.2%, only 8.6% behind Giuliani despite entering the fray so late.

While Thompson certainly didn’t break away from the crowd I believe he didn’t damage himself with any of his answers either. Unlike Romney who is probably checking with lawyers right now to explain the war powers held by a sitting President. The joke that Thompson made at the end about the debates getting boring without him left the viewer with a rather light hearted impression of Republican’s who can all too often come off as rigid. thus I believe Thompson may have lifted many of the front runners just by his showing up.

The most inane part of the debate came from moderator Maria Bartiromo who can’t seem to comprehend that the breakdown of the family has a negative effect on the economy. Hello! Is anybody there? The statistics for single women who have babies out of wedlock are pretty staggering.

The question “what is the greatest long-term threat to the U.S. economy?” was given to all candidates in a lightning round. Here is Bartiromo’s exchange with Brownback:

Ms. Bartiromo: Very quickly, Senator Brownback?

Mr. Brownback: The breakdown of the family is our biggest long-term problem we have. You’ve got 36% of the children born out of wedlock in Detroit.

Ms. Bartiromo: Greatest economic threat?

Mr. Brownback: Yes, on a long-term basis, because if you don’t start children — and you can raise a good child in a single-parent family. You can do that. But we do know, by the broad numbers, that the best place is between a mom and a dad.

In our inner cities, you’re looking at 65, 70% of the children born out of wedlock. Your best way to solve your education, your crime rate problems, your drug problems is to get more children in that stable environment.

It’s a tough issue. This is a tough issue. But long term, I think that’s our biggest problem.

Sorry moderator, you don’t need to steer the candidates based on your lack of understanding.

The national consensus for Thompson is mixed this morning. I am not sure where the numbers will swing but I think that Thompson did great. I was hoping someone would liven things up without resorting to the Ron Paul kind of shrieking and Thompson did just that. It’s interesting to note that just about every analysis I have read this morning ignored that Thompson directly addressed Islamo-fascism.

Matthews: Senator Thompson, all things considered, has the Bush policy toward Iraq been a good one?

Mr. Thompson: I think the policy we’re engaged in now is the right one. Clearly, to me, we didn’t go in with enough troops and we didn’t know what to expect when we got there. But now we’re showing signs of progress.

I think we got to take advantage of the opportunities that we have there, now that we see a window of opportunity for things to turn around and us to stabilize that place and not have to leave with our tail between our legs.

If we did that, it would make for a more dangerous United States of America.

Mr. Thompson: I think we’ve got to come to terms with the nature of the threat that our country faces. It is a global war; Islamic fascism has declared it upon us. They look at it as something that’s been going on for a long, long time. They’re perfectly willing for it to go on for a long time more, killing millions of innocent people in the process.

They play by no rules and they are intent on bringing down Western civilization and the United States of America. So we have to understand what’s necessary — and the determination that we need to show to friend and foe alike that we’ll do what’s necessary to fight on any front that we have to fight on.

This is a front in a much broader war, and I think the young people that I talked to coming back from understand that. In fact, sometimes it’s strange to me to think that the average 20-year-old serving us in Iraq knows more about what it takes for our national security than the average 20-year veteran on Capitol Hill.

That is a good answer, one that will resonate well with conservatives. I think all the buzz about Thompson this morning is one more thing that he can count in his corner. So once again I have to ask those on the left, why are you so afraid of Fred Thompson?

See also: Captain’s Quarters, The Moderate Voice, The Corner, Hot Air

Trackposted to third world county, Right Truth, Big Dog’s Weblog, The Populist, Shadowscope, The Pink Flamingo, Cao’s Blog, and Leaning Straight Up, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

 Send this post a Friend  

Trackback URI | Comments RSS