Analysis of the Republican Debate in New Hampshire
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-06-14/analysis-republican-debate-new-hampshire
Seven Republican challengers met face to face for the first major debate in the run-up to the Republican nomination. Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty and Herman Cain sparred over health care, jobs, and U.S. involvement in Libya. But the candidates primarily focused on President Obama rather than each other. The debate was billed as the most important event of the Republican nomination process so far. But did the candidates set themselves apart? And will this early debate matter in the voting booth? Analysis of the Granite State’s first Republican debate.
Guests
Ron Elving
Washington editor for NPR.
Michael Tomasky
special correspondent for Newsweek and The Daily Beast; editor of the quarterly journal Democracy.
Stephen Hayes
senior writer at the Weekly Standard and a Fox News contributor.
Susan Page
Washington bureau chief for USA Today.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
I watched the debates closely, blood is in the water, flailing fat democrats on the surface spewing blood. I definitely see a focus emerging from the republican party, after all the Obama administration is an easy target of undisciplined beliefs put into power by people who were looking at everything except what they were voting for. Ron Paul must be singing because all I hear is music to my ears, but much too mature of thought for the average voter who would rather cling to a sinking ship. I would have to say any of them would be an improvement over what we have now. Romney is the favorite but Michelle Bachman seems the brightest of the two, very sharp I like her a lot.
I wish the media would wait another 9 months before having debates. Starting the campaign season this early increases the money spent on campaigns and takes attention away from issues that should be focused on.
I'd much rather focus on withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan; nuclear energy; water safety. I could name 40 more things I'd rather spend my time on.
monte on June 13, 2011 @ 10:46 pm wrote: “I watched the debates closely, blood is in the water, flailing fat democrats on the surface spewing blood. . . . put into power by people who were looking at everything except what they were voting . . . . too mature of thought for the average voter who would rather cling to a sinking ship.”
How pathetic, sir, you can’t even bother to wait for this episode of The Diane Rehm Show to air before spewing your juvenile nonsense. And you lecture us on maturity!
I shall wait to hear what Diane and her guests have to say before Commenting on the actual show (assuming I do). But we already know what you’ll say, no doubt something along the lines of: “DR and her guests once again prove their NPR liberal bias by failing to fall on their knees and acclaim Bachmann a genius and the savior America needs.”
As for the 2012 election (which you are convinced is now a mere technicality) I have only one thing to say: It’s a long way to Election Day!
P.S. - I hope everyone else noticed his elitist and condescending attitude to “the average voter”.
What a row of ducks! Load your bird popper Dick Cheney. (Ron Paul has aged rapidly in 4 years, looks/sounds way feebler than Nader.) Obama is a shoe-in unless he suffers a wardrobe malfunction. (another Weinergate) The only issue now is who replaces Joe Biden at VP.
And I'm not even a Democrat. A friend told me that I'm an Abolitionist, wanting to end wage slavery.
I will not respond to the insults of fascist trolls. (Keep repeating this phrase.) You can't argue with a recording.
I have two comments. The first is that it is a travesty that an announced candidate such as Gary Johnson was excluded by CNN while an undeclared candidate such as Michelle Bachmann is invited. Does the MSM only like to invite candidates who all try to sound alike or repeat the popular sentiment.
Secondly, only Congressman Ron Paul directly answered all the questions asked with clear, intelligent answers. He also seemed to be the only candidate with specific plans regarding foreign policy, health care, deficit reduction. It was obvious that many of the other candidates were trying to co-opt his message while not truly believing in personal freedom, INDIVIDUAL rights, property rights, sound money, less government intervention in how we choose to live, and less foreign intervention and nation building. When are people going to realize that repeatedly electing politicians who want to do more of the same will result in America getting more of the same: more wars, more debt, more regulation, more control and less liberty and freedom.
I thought the format of the debate did a disservice to the process of assessing the candidates. The moderator continually cut them off. Ironically, he would say, "we need to keep things short so we can get to more". I believe he had it exactly backwards. If he asks a big question such as, "is a 5% annual rate of growth a reasonable expectation?", then he should allow adequate time for a response - certainly more than 30 second. Perhaps the debate should not have attempted to cover such a wide range of topics.
Andy Duback of Williston, VT
AnthonyC, Gary Johnson was being interviewed on Freedom Watch on Fox Business at the same time as the CNN debates, truly unfair to a very thoughtful and potentially great candidate. Thank goodness Ron Paul has a son who appears more than able to carry the torch of his fathers platform into the future.
Why do Romney and Bachman (who believe that the government can not do anything right) need to take over the presidency? History shows the last Republican president had the worst job creation record during his 8 years in office. And cutting taxes did not create jobs, it only changed a government surplus to a large deficit.
I am sick of these phoney debates...both parties have sold America out to Wall Street and to add insult to injury, now we have to endure listening to these rambling miscreants until the fix comes in.
I disagree with what your guests are saying - I actually found the candidates disrespectful of the established format. When you have 1 minute to answer a question and 30 seconds for a follow up, answering the question directly instead of inserting anecdotal, unnecessary fluff would have been a sure way to cover more ground.
I thought the debate should have started with some topic other than the Health Care plan. EVERYONE knows that EVERY Republican candidate for any office whatsoever opposes the health care plan. Not news. The first 10 - 15 minutes of the debate were: "Blah, blah, repeal Obamacare, blah, blah." I almost turned off my TV.
I fail to understand why The Media, including public radio, have joined the premature 2012 parade to the White House so far in
advance of a campaign that may occur in greatly changed conditions, requiring new approaches and ideas.
Giving credibility to any & all candidates who put themselves forward, regardless of qualifications for the office, merely legitimizes their viabiity,
rather than appraising it for the long term. Far less attention should be given to this still-distant election at this time.
Cal Kolbe
Boston, Mass.
I was glad to hear Romney defend his health care plan on a basis of federalism. We've heard for months how the Massachusetts plan is his weak point, but it seems that trying things out on a state-wide basis is exactly something conservatives would be in favor of. Are ultra-conservatives against the idea of federalism? (I literally don't know their stance.)
1. I loved it when Ron Paul said HE as president would tell the generals when to end a war. How true -- the generals seem to always want to keep wars going. ("To a hammer, everything's a nail.")
2. I'd love to see a Bachman/Cain or Cain/Bachman ticket. Their advisers could be all the other candidates standing on that stage last night - PLUS Sara Palin. All of them have good heads on their shoulders.
3. It's sad that good candidates have to have a "pizzaz" to make it - capture the "fancy" of voters. How shallow!! Style over substance. It rules out good solid, "quiet" intellectuals like Santorum, Pawlenty.
4. Pawlenty's explanation of why he called it "Obramney Care" was perfectly satisfactory to me. He said he called it that because in Obama's own words, he based his plan on Romneycare.
It amazes me how divorced from reality journalists are. I am an economist and was appalled at the lies told on the Rep. debate in NH. Bachman said CBO said O health plan would cost 80.,000 jobs--not true. Gingrich said Reagan created 20 million jobs. Not true. Journalists do not fact check but blather on ignorant and lazy. Too many lies accepted by out "intrepid" journalists.
how can you call Perry a fiscal conservative when he lives in a $10,000 rental. paid with tax money, and cuts the education budget.
Why are Republicans (e.g. Santorum) still talking about trickle-down economics? That has been debunked long ago.
Truly a "Confederacy Of Dunces"!
Regarding the caller talking about Republican support for veterans - This isn't new. Look at supposedly "pro-life" congresscritters who vote to cut funding for programs that support the poor and unemployed. The military is good, veterans are not. Fetuses are good, once they're born they're on their own.
Been listening to this morning's show and hearing one of the program's analysts refer to Michelle Bachman's "extreme views." There was no debate on the characterization among the other panelists and Diane. Why are my tax dollars paying for a radio program that attacks political candidates, in particular those who oppose the current government? I would bet that if one of the analysts attacked President Obama in such a way that a debate would have followed. During the Bush Administration, I and others referred to NPR as National Pentagon Radio. Now may say that NPR is liberal. That may be true, but I think it's more important to realize that NPR has been supporting the government that is in power. This morning's program is appropriate for MSNBC or the liberal political talk channel on Sirius. We don't need to support partisan politics with tax dollars. I like NPR's and PBS's cultural offerings, but would send the political programs packing to Sirius and cable tv.
I love to see lots of Republican candidates. I hope they spend lots of money during the primaries. Also, think how many jobs they are creating.
Don't know what your monitor shows but mine at the top says this program is listener supported. No tax $ in that!
A reporter (ahem) on your show today said that Michelle Bachman established her bona fides by using a statistic on the Obama health insurance reform profit protection act, that the CBO stated the plan would result in the loss of 800 jobs.
Nobody corrected the reporter's statement.
Almost at the very end of the program, anothe reporter said that Bachman did not tell the truth (lied?) about Obama's health insurance reform legislation, that 800 jobs would not be lost. It would take too much time to explain her misleading statement...and it was left at that.
Why did a national, well-known reporter get bamboozled by Bachman? Why was praise heaped on her for lying to the public? Why did it take so long for anyone to challenge Bachman's statement?
This is why I trust the blogs, the ones which do not make statements withou citations and links, and just a few broadcasters, such as Diane and Amy Goodman who appear on broadcast media, much, much more than the MCM (Mainstream Corporate Media).
I think we need a law which makes it illegal to lie to the public on the public airwaves. Wow! Think about it: Even politicians would have to couch their contentions so that they would not be outright lies; reporters would find it ehanced their standing with the public if they did point out lies!
Did I hear one of your panel members suggest that Mr Kane's statements concerning appointing muslims to the cabinet or federal judgeships was just an mistake of an inexperienced person? According to news reports, he has made the same statement at least 3 times.
Mr Kane was expressing a clear biased point of view according to my dictionary. Especially since he admitted how little he knows about Islam. I do not suggest that anyone doesn't have the right to their opinion. Credibility is another issue. As a child of the civil rights movement of the 50's-60's, I appreciate the power such opinions can gain if responsible people fail to name the words for what they are. Kane's mistake was expressing his honest opinion. I'm not certain that our current President would met Kane's religious standard to be a Federal judicial appointment.
I listened a few minutes and that's all it took to hear two lies. First was the comment that Michele Bachman was well informed on the issues. Second was the lie Michele Bachman told when she said according to the CBO The Health Care Affordability Act would cost 800,000 jobs. The CBO stated that as many as 800,000 people may retire early if they could get affordable health care through this act. They would be replaced by new employees.This went by this "distinguished" panel without a comment.
Where the smoking gun on Sarah Palins 24,000 emails during her time as Governor. Come on New York Times or Washington Post you should of found something being your so fond of her?
Let me see if I get this right now,
Liberal voice-Ron Elving, Washington editor for NPR.
Liberal voice-Michael Tomasky, Newsweek, The Daily Beast; Democracy.
Liberal Voice-Susan Page, USA Today.
Liberal Voice-Diane Rehm, NPR Host
Liberal Voice-NPR Telephone Screener-
Liberal Voice-NPR email screener-
Center Voice-(just guessing here)-Stephen Hayes, Weekly Standard; Fox News contributor.
Conservative voice-___________
Oh my, no wonder this so-called "analysis" was so one sided and it's no wonder all of the emails and telephone calls were screened to allow only those anti-conservative comments an "on air voice."
Ms Rehm, You're a nice lady and I like your show, I listen every day. But your show falls far short of a fair and balanced political view. I especially was surprised when Elving's comment about that "old song" and Sarah Palin, generated a laugh from you, since, he obviously meant it as a slur against Palin.
It is no surprise that so many people want to pull funding from NPR. And to address the earlier post on "listener supported" This particular show may have most of its funds donated by listeners, but the station itself wouldn't be on the air without federal dollars. And if I'm wrong, why was there such a hue and outcry by NPR when Republicans wanted to pull the funding?
Yeah folks, I would say go back to Websters and give this episode another title. How about. "6 to 1, liberal voices fail the analysis test while inquiring minds left starving for balanced views. "
But, let me add that I enjoyed the Richard White interview on his new book about Railroads.
Funny how NYT and other liberal rags are always spouting about how the wealthy spend their money. I wonder about the expense of this witch hunt against Governor Palin?
Ooooh, the specter of Sarah Palin looms over the nation and the villagers are bleeding from her attacks. Hang her! String her up on the highest tree!
Let those hungry little boys and girls quench their blood-thirsty appetites!
Small minds feeding small minds.
Another lackluster panel of establishment drones. The only time Ron Paul was mentioned was to call him an isolationist. Once again, for the 10,000th time - Ron Paul advocates non-interventionism - NOT isolationism. Trade and friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none. Get a clue.