The debate just wrapped up (it will reair tonight at 9 PM ET on MSNBC) and my first reaction is that there were way too many people on that stage. RedState is on to something with a reader poll up asking who people think should no longer be invited to debates. ElephantBiz thinks that Tom Tancredo, Sam Brownback, Duncan Hunter; all good men, have no business being in future debates. They've failed to distinguish themselves on any issues. To a further extent, neither have Mike Huckabee or John McCain, but perhaps with less people on stage they may be able carve out their niche.
Two of the issues I identified before the debate, unions and Chris Matthews, did come into play. There was a question about the rights of unions and all the candidates answered it correctly: Reaffirm the right to unionize and the contributions of unions historically, criticize the practice of forced unionism and union political activity with union dues, and sidestep the issue of the day. Chris Matthews also took his shots where he could, particularly in prodding Ron Paul on whether or not he would support the eventual nominee and letting Paul take a hit on the Party.
As far as choosing a winner goes...By virtue of there being so many similar messages voiced at once, the differences between the candidates became blurred. Thus, no one won. Who does that benefit? The status quo, which are the frontrunners.
More in depth tomorrow.
First a question: How does Chris Matthews keep getting assigned to the Republican debate? His derisive, presumptive attitude makes me sick. Isn't there anyone who can ask tough, important questions without allowing his personal hatred for the candidates to ooze visibly from every pore?
As far as too many people on stage: I think a few of them will drop out before the Caucuses - probably including McCain, who lost quite a bit of ground between the May and October Iowa Polls.
Posted by: CR | October 9, 2007 9:34 PM | Permalink to Comment