Turn on...Tune In...Drop Out

Sorry for the late post. It was an active day in politics yesterday and I wanted to get to it all- John, Rudy and the 4 Amigos at the Reagan Flight Center, I mean, Library. Let's take them in chronological order.

John Edwards
As I listened to John Edwards' speech to end his Presidential run, one question kept flashing through my mind: why are politicians so often at their best in these situations? Is it because they're finally free to say what they really believe and be who they really are? Or is it because humility is a wonderful characteristic that we rarely see on the election trail? Whatever the reason, John Edwards stepped up to the mike yesterday in New Orleans and became the candidate many of us thought he could be--just as he was saying good-bye. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/22916846#22916846
He reminded us that "we, as citizens and as a government, have a moral responsibility to each other." He exhorted us to take care of each other, and made it sound appealing. He told a moving story of talking to homeless people under a bridge in New Orleans and how a woman implored him to "not forget us". And surpisingly, there was no angry finger-pointing about the "two Americas". Instead, he spoke of the promise of "One America". Too late, but certainly not too little. Edwards insisted that he extracted solemn pledges from Obama and Clinton to make "eliminating poverty" a central theme of their campaigns. Obama wasted no time assuring everyone that he'll follow instructions (especially if it leads to an endorsement). http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/22916631#22916631 And Clinton said, "John Edwards ended his campaign today in the same way he started it — by standing with the people who are too often left behind and nearly always left out of our national debate.” So, we'll see. Rest assured, though, that John Edwards will continue to be on the front lines of the struggle for economic justice and that he won't forget. He was a welcome addition to this Presidential race.

Rudy Giuliani
Similarly, Rudy Giuliani demonstrated his relaxed, humorous side during his withdrawal/endorsement speech at the Reagan Library. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/22921439#22921439
After endorsing Mac, Rudy said he'd campaign for him "or not...depending on what John wants...or if I'm in trouble". He based his endorsement primarily on McCain's ability to lead in the "terrorists' war on us", an interesting turn of phrase that was perhaps the harbinger of his eventual failure: He always wanted to do it (or say it) a little differently. As a result, Rudy bucked conventional campaign wisdom and found himself painted into a corner in Florida. I'm not going to over-analyze Rudy's fall from grace, stunning and precipitous as it was. Let's just say that even though he'll always be America's Mayor, (brand names die hard) he, in reality, is an ex-mayor of New York and that office has never produced a Potus. Or we can just leave it to Dorothy Kaliades of Queens who said, in a NY Times article today, "He was too New York, too Italian, and he had too many wives." OK.

The Debate
If you've been reading this blog for the past few weeks, you know I try to be polite most of the time. But every now and then, I have to call a dog a cur. I mean, let's be honest, this thing at the Reagan Library was a mess.

If you're a Republican, you can't be happy about the choice you were presented with last night. While the front runners engaged in petty bickering, the two guys who can't win made the most sense. Again. And if you're President of CNN you've got to wonder why you couldn't have found an adult to moderate the debate. I was waiting for Anderson Cooper to fire a spitball at someone. Or for a teacher to finally walk to the front of the room.

Now, if you want to say that each party has had a fractious debate that brought out the worst in the two front runners, that's fair enough. I don't have to assume that last night's performances by McCain and Romney were the norm. But disturbing trends are appearing. And because of the uneven nature of the participation, I'm not going to grade each participant. I'll instead give some general impressions based on individual moments. I'm afraid that's all this debate deserves.

On the positive end, each candidate looked great. Even McCain. Take it from a professional actor, there's nothing like an LA make-up artist.

As I said, Huck and Paul seemed cogent. Mac and Romney had decent moments before the food fight began.

Some of my favorite answers were:

• McCain's straight up aggreement that states should be allowed to set their own environmental policy (specifically, mpg requirements for cars). Best line: 'We even have a Pro-American French President, which proves that if you live long enough anything is possible".
• Romney's argument for a global environmental policy--so that non-reciprocal regulation won't drive American polluting companies to other countries, to continue polluting.
• Mitt explaining the difference between the leadership benefits of being governor as opposed to a legislator --"legislators sit in committees and call that leadership". Good line.
• Huck's amplification of Mitt's point. "States [meaning Governors] know how Washington works but Washington doesn't know how states work."
• Mitt's clear explanation as to why Huck's highway program wouldn't provide a short term stimulus (between design and permit approvals, it would take too long to provide a quick cash infusion).
• Ron Paul's typically understated, but on the money, reason "why Reagan would endorse him": I don't know what he'd do today...but he did campaign for me in '78." What!! If any of the other candidates could make that claim they would've put it on a billboard. Plus, Paul recalled Reagan stating "that no great country that got off of the gold standard, remained great." Kudos, again, for being the only candidate in this entire race to talk about the perils of currency devaluation.
• Mac's straight answer on "whether he would've (as Reagan did) appointed pro-choice Sandra Day O'Connor (yes).
• Mitt discussing "four major strategies" in the world today (energy countries like Russia that seek to use that leverage for their gain, China--communism with a wild west capitalism, Al Qaeda--destruction of status quo, and the U.S. --trying to spread democracy and free markets) in a question about Vladimir Putin.

That's the good news. The rest of it is ugly.

Let's start with Mac, who I thought had a bad night. This may sound petty, but when is Mark McKinnon or Rudy or anyone going to tell Mac that radical Islamic extremism is redundant!! And if I have to hear that he was "a foot soldier in the Reagan revolution" one more time, I'm going to scream. Beyond that, though, I saw a disturbing occurrence that I hope won't be re-played in this campaign. But I have a feeling it will. McCain, when asked why he would be an effective economic leader, hypnotically lapsed into his stump speech about being the best prepared commander in chief. It was truly a "huh?" moment. And I thought he was exposed as a petty, politics-as-usual candidate about the Romney timetable issue.

Romney, who did better, nevertheless let his dismay at Mac's audacity get the better of him. Instead of hitting back hard when Mac said, "Yeah, I know you've bought and sold some companies...and some people have lost their jobs", Mitt just looked at him in disbelief. I don't blame you, Mitt, but you' can't let someone get away with that. And when Romney said he never advocated timetables, the actual quote read by Cooper contained substantial mention of timetables. He explained the whole context of the quote but he still looked bad. The bottom line for Mitt is that he may be competent, he may be able to lead, but he isn't sharp and he doesn't have an inspirational bone in his body.

Huckabee is starting to let his polished "I'm the authentic guy" act sound a little too rehearsed. And it was interesting that when he was provided openings to slam Mac, he did not. And he carefully crafted his pro-military message to jibe with Mac's hawkishness. Which leads many of us to believe that he's angling for a VP slot on the McCain ticket.

So, in the end, when America shakes it's head after a debate and says, "Tell me again why we can't vote for Ron Paul?", you know it hasn't been a good night for Republicans.

I've had a legitimate issue raised about the desire to comment on something other than my question of the day. I agree. Feel free to comment on anything you'd like, as long as it's political or attached to some current event.

But...the question of the day is simple: did the Repub's hurt themselves in the debate, or was it an anomaly that voters will forget?

Hit the word "comment" below and let's get it on.