By
Hunter Kincaid
May 8, 2007
The Democratic presidential debate was incredibly boring. For the most part, we already know the candidates and we already know where they stand; except for a few zingers here and there, it was a real snooze-fest. The news is having too much fun talking about Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and whether or not the country is ready; none of the coverage focused on the issues that the candidates discussed.
The Republican debate, held last week, was far more entertaining.
I was once a Republican myself. Having been born and raised in Montana, it was hard to be anything else. John McCain used to be my hero, and I actually supported Bush in 2000. I attribute that to temporary insanity. I have no other way to explain it.
It seems the candidates have gotten more conservative since then.
The debate was held at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif., and as expected, the candidates had their lips so firmly glued to Reagan's butt I'm surprised they could move their mouths to debate. CNN reported that they collectively invoked Reagan a total of 19 times during the debate — hardly a surprise. Even more hilarious, behind their heads were two visible Reagan Library logos — an attempt at subliminal messaging, perhaps?
Whereas in 2004 everyone was invoking Bush and wanting his support, this time around the GOP candidates treated his name like a bad word.
The Washington Post reported that before a final question about Bush was asked, candidates had mentioned Don Imus as often as Bush. The Republicans are in an interesting position because a large number of Republicans still support the president, and so for their primary they have to play nice, even though the American public at large seems to despise Bush. It should be interesting to watch the GOP candidate make a complete flip and start bad-mouthing Bush once he gets the nomination.
Most of the answers were typical and could be expected from candidates trying to impress a conservative base, although there were a few exceptions thanks to Rudy Giuliani's surprises.
Moderator Chris Matthews asked candidates if Roe v. Wade should be repealed, and expectedly, they went down the line and everyone said yes, adding some moralist reason why a bunch of men should be able to choose what women can do with their bodies. Giuliani, however, said "it'd be OK," then added that it would also be OK if a strict constructionist decided the ruling was precedent and kept it. Rudy's playing all across the field to avoid offending possible voters.
The other interesting comment came from Tommy Thompson, who was asked, "If a private employer finds homosexuality immoral, should he be allowed to fire a gay worker?" He made some comment about how individual employers should have freedom to make that decision on their own, then finally answered yes.
Come Friday morning, Thompson was apologizing and saying he misunderstood the question. I think the question was very clear, and Thompson looks like a big fat liar. He made some statement about how there should be no discrimination in the workplace and how his state of Wisconsin protects people. He said the right thing later, but only once the cameras were off and conservatives weren't tuned in to his every word.
One topic in particular proved just how inadequate any of these men would be as president. When asked about stem cell research, almost all of them stated they were against federal funding for it. This came after they invoked Reagan in front of his wife Nancy, who fights for funding for stem cell research, hoping it will lead to cures for diseases like Alzheimer's, which Reagan suffered from until his last moments.
The candidates claim him to be their hero, yet they fight against the very research that could have saved him.
How do conservatives expect to get elected while spouting off all this mess? Did they not pay attention to the 2006 elections? The public is tired of pandering, tired of extremists and wants someone the opposite of Bush, who has an approval rating of 28 percent, according to a recent Newsweek poll.
Bush isn't getting the job done for Americans, and if Republicans want to get any attention from voters, they had better start whistling a different tune very soon.
Reach columnist Hunter Kincaid at opinion@thedaily.washington.edu.
2 Comments
#1 Allen
on May 8, 2007 at 3:55 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
I think the field of GOP candidates is pretty strong, I agree that none are quite the visionary that Reagan was and none of them are offering up a unique plan to succeed in Iraq.
But I don't think the GOP is lost. The Democrats just want to cut out of Iraq and while most Americans want our troops out of Iraq many disagree on how that should be done.
And you think 28% approval is bad? The President of South Korea Roh Moo Hyun had an 11% approval rating at times last year. Bush may only be getting 28% approval right now from the American people, but if the surge works and Iraq becomes more secure, and you hear less and less about American troop losses, not only will his approval ratings go up, the GOP will get to sigh in relief because Iraq is a success. (thats all ifs and whens...)
#2 Hunter
on May 8, 2007 at 10:12 p.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name)
If = certainly not likely
when = never
result = Bush is still a loser and the GOP that supports him follows suit
Post a comment