October, 9th 2007
Final debate bits
– Liz Mair
Huckabee is right that SCHIP was about political posturing. But his answer is too detailed already-- he's out of time. Huckabee's basically saying he wouldn't get to the point of having to veto SCHIP because he would have run the PR better. He's also saying he might not have vetoed the bill, essentially (I think he's saying) because it might have been a waste of political capital. Yet, by defaulting to the individual control of insurance point, he gets a round of applause. Interesting.
Romney 's sounding a little defensive at the suggestion that America might seem anti-Arab.
Thompson is giving a tremendously waffley answer on why we need a strong dollar.
Giuliani is saying that we should in fact be selling more things overseas, not worrying about foreigners owning bits of America.
Brownback seems to like Alan Greenspan, but can't utter his name. What's up with that? He needs a number of people, and probably also Phil Gramm.
McCain just said he doesn't have the expertise to know whether Ben Bernanke's rate cuts have been good. That's probably true, but I'm not sure it's a good answer. He personally likes low interest rates (no kidding, I have a mortgage, too).
Paul isn't willing to say he'll support the Republican nominee for president next year. I think a lot of Republicans feel that way, actually (I know a lot of Thompson and Rudy supporters who say they can't and won't support Romney).
Tancredo doesn't seem to want to commit to supporting the Republican nominee next year, either. Interesting.
Brownback will support the nominee of the party. He wants someone who's pro-growth and pro-life, and won't accept that someone who doesn't fit that bill might be nominated.
Hunter's basically saying the same thing as Brownback.
Giuliani will not allow London to replace NYC as the financial capital of the world. The number of IPOs being conducted in London is irrelevant. He's not going to tolerate us ceding ground to London. Everyone loves America! Yay! Actually, one of the reasons I like Giuliani is because I think he is committed to overturning mistakes in terms of over-regulating that have given rise to the movement of IPOs to London.
Romney has to answer second. Not good for him. He does get the detail in re: section 404. And he gets in the three-legged stool point, vis a vis the nominee. He just cracked a really, really mean joke about Thompson, too. (These debates are a lot like Law & Order; huge cast; series goes on forever; Fred Thompson only appears at the very end").
Thompson gets one back about how Romney's really the best actor on the stage. Nice one! He also knows the name of the Canadian PM., and that we get more oil from Canada than anyone else. Thank God: no matter how much people may think he's another dumb Southerner like Bush, evidently, that's not true.
I have very little idea what Huckabee is talking about re: air traffic, but I like the Jetsons/Flintstones reference.
McCain would catch bin Laden by establishing something akin to the OSS, and letting them loose to find him. McCain will support himself. He likes Sarkozy.
Romney thinks we're not optimistic enough and that's the biggest threat to our economy. Personally, I would have gone for too much regulation, and too high corporate taxes, but what the hell would I know?
Brownback thinks that the number of kids born out of wedlock is the greatest threat to our economy. This is why I won't be voting for Brownback.
Giuliani's OK with the two-party system. Giuliani believes the biggest threat to our economy is our education, and the need to improve it. He's also worried that if we do HillaryCare, we'll let down the Canadians who need to be able to come here to get their health care.
Thompson's fine with his timing of entry of the race. He thought the debates were boring without him, though.