A few quick thoughts on the debate tonight at the Reagan Library:

It would be a much more effective and useful debate if only the two candidates with a chance of winning the nomination were in the debate. Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee are a meaningless distraction at this point. Either John McCain or Mitt Romney is going to be the Republican party’s nominee, and Republican voters need to evaluate those two candidates and decide which one will be the best candidate in November.

McCain, asked about the home mortgage “crisis”, spent a lot of time blaming lenders and “greedy people on Wall Street”. How about just a little conservative “straight talk” senator? What about the borrowers who voluntarily took out loans they could not afford? He seems to have let them all off the hook as innocent dupes and victims.

McCain said he’s a federalist, and California should be able to regulate CO2 emissions in the state, ban offshore oil drilling, etc. Fair enough, but then he should be asked how that jibes with his support for a national CO2 “cap and trade” policy and his opposition to drilling for oil in the ANWR.

Mitt Romney offered a strong defense of President Bush on the war; good for him.

McCain: “I served for patriotism, not for profit.” Profit is not a dirty word in conservative circles, senator. Leave that kind of talk to the socialists in the other party.

McCain is really hung up on “buzzwords”. Romney should object: “I don’t deal in Washington-style buzzwords and sound bites, senator, I deal in complete thoughts and ideas. Taking a word or two out of a complete answer to misrepresent my point is dishonest.”

Asked about his lack of military experience, Romney mentioned President Lincoln; he would have been smart to point out that President Reagan had little military experience before he became Commander in Chief (The low road would’ve involved perhaps mentioning that President Jimmy Carter served in the Navy, like McCain).

Huckabee said, “this isn’t a two man race.” But it really is a two man race at this point. Huckabee and Paul need to take the honorable path taken by Giuliani, and withdraw.

Here is the transcript of the debate from CNN.

A fascinating and unexpected admission appeared in the NY Times this morning. They were basically forced to admit the Bush record on the economy has been a good one, in order to try to hang the worsening economy around his neck:

Mr. Bush has spent years presiding over an economic climate of growth that would be the envy of most presidents. Yet much to the consternation of his political advisers, he has had trouble getting credit for it, in large part because Americans were consumed by the war in Iraq.

In large part because liberal news outlets like the NY Times have not reported it like they would if a Democrat were in the White House.

Of course the conventional wisdom that any president controls the economy is mostly nonsense, but the media should at least be expected to report it with some consistency.

“Mr. Bush has spent years presiding over an economic climate of growth that would be the envy of most presidents.” Paul Krugman must’ve spit his coffee all over the paper reading that sentence this morning, assuming he reads the NY Times.

An interesting headline this morning from the AP on the South Carolina primary: “Obama, Clinton face off in SC primary”

John Edwards, who does get a mention in the second paragraph, must just love being treated as an afterthought. (Related: Charles Krauthammer had a really good column examining what a complete phony Edwards is.)

In describing the acrimony between the Clinton and Obama campaigns, the AP offers as an example: “The former first lady aired an ad saying Obama had once approved of Republican ideas.”

Oh, the horror! Some enterprising reporter ought to try to delve into this subject a bit more with the Democratic candidates, especially Mrs. Clinton.

Weren’t many of those Republican ideas embraced and signed into law by President Bill Clinton in the 1990s, an era now described by Mrs. Clinton and other Democrats as a sort of Golden Age for America?

The 1994 “Contract with America” included things like welfare reform, a balanced budget, and lower taxes for senior citizens on Social Security. While he initially opposed the Republican Congress on these important initiatives, Clinton eventually signed on to them and took credit for them. Democrats should be pressed to answer which of those reforms they now consider bad ideas, and why.

If only Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama, and other Democrats would answer real questions from an independent press. But we’re more likely to see John Edwards in the White House.

Columnist Robert Novak reported:

Illinois Democrats close to Sen. Barack Obama are quietly passing the word that John Edwards will be named attorney general in an Obama administration.

If true, this should disqualify Barack Obama from consideration for the office he seeks. The mere consideration of the idea that utterly phony ambulance chaser John Edwards would be put in charge of the Justice Department would conclusively demonstrate a complete lack of good judgment on Obama’s part. It would also be a purely political move, not merit-based, which would belie Obama’s campaign theme of “getting rid of business as usual in Washington.”

A good line from Power Line’s John Hinderaker: “I can think of a few worse cabinet appointments than this one–Dennis Kucinich as Secretary of Defense, for example–but not many.”

And from Hot Air: “Silky v1.0: Ambulance chaser. Silky v2.0: Al Qaeda chaser.”

(That’s probably an overly optimistic view. The Democrats seem more interested in using the law to go after those trying to fight al Qaeda than for going after al Qaeda – telecom companies that cooperated with the government in surveillance of suspected terrorist activity, citizens who report suspicious activity on airplanes, the Bush administration, that sort of thing.)

Bold predictions:

1) John Edwards will tell us his father used to work at a mill.

2) The Democrats will play the race card a lot, even by Democrat standards.

3) Almost every problem on Earth will be blamed on the Bush Administration.

4) All candidates will claim what we need is “change”.

Play-by-play —

They start off competing for who can give away more tax money for “economic stimulus”. (Shortly, they’ll complain the government doesn’t have enough money for X, Y, or Z.)

Obama steals Edwards’ line about his dad working at the mill.

Hillary: making Bush tax cuts permanent, i.e. not raising taxes, is a “real risk.”

Note: the phrase “green collar jobs” is already annoying.

About ten minutes in, there’s John and his dad at the mill!

Obama hits Hillary hard on recent statements by Bill and her campaign misrepresenting his statements.

Hillary claims Obama praised Republican policies over the last 10-15 years – fighting words for Democrats!

Edwards: Soak the rich to pay for Social Security.

Question: are lenders racists?

Edwards: Lenders “target” low income families. They are “predators”.

Hillary: a five year price freeze on mortgages will have no effect on the real estate market? (Why doesn’t the federal government simply dictate that gasoline will cost $1.50 a gallon for the next five years? If price fixing works with no ill effects, why not?)

Obama incoherent: We need to end “predatory lending” but give people more access to capital. Apparently money does grow on trees!

Obama takes another shot at Hillary – we need to be able to trust what our leaders say.

Hillary to Obama: “You never take responsibility for any vote.” (Boos follow) Hits him for all his “present’ votes.

Obama responds: When you take one of 4000 votes, present it in the worst possible light, that has to be answered. Clinton criticisms “not factually accurate”.

Edwards is fighting all the way to simply be noticed.

Edwards hits Obama for voting “present” over 100 times. “What you’re accusing Hillary of, you’ve done to us”.

Hillary: “My health care plan will cover everyone.” “Shared responsibility” sounds a bit like a line from Mussolini.

They promise more affordable health care, while offering nothing to indicate how they would lower any costs, rather than just shifting them to taxpayers.

A long argument about who’s more authoritarian on forcing people to buy health insurance.

Question: Battlefield commanders in Iraq reporting real progress, military and political. Are you trying to end the war, or win it?

Hillary: End it. There is no military solution. (regurgitating talking point, ignoring evidence of real change)

There you have it, victory is not on the table.

Edwards: I’ll retreat faster than anyone.

Obama: I want to surrender and retreat “safely.” We could give away high speed Internet with the money we’d save by abandoning Iraq. What morally idiotic priorities.

The Democrats sure do have a negative view of America, full of predators, victims, and misery. It’s like Charles Dickens or Dostoevsky wrote their campaign material. “More universal, taxpayer funded porridge, please.”

Question: Is the race of candidates a valid consideration for voters?

Edwards goes off on his poverty riff. Someone should tell him most blacks in America aren’t in poverty, and he should stop stereotyping.

Hillary continues the anti-poverty theme.

Obama: I started my career after college working in the projects. People of all races want “change.”

Edwards: Goes out on a limb and says poor mothers shouldn’t lose their children.

Question: Was Bill Clinton “the first black president”?

Obama jokes, “I’d have to investigate his dancing abilities before I could judge whether he’s really a brother.”

Hillary: What better way to celebrate the legacy of Dr. King than to look at the gender and skin color of the people on teh stage tonight.

That seems to directly contradict King’s legacy. The candidates should be judged by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin.

Obama: The quest for equality is a concern for all Americans, not just African-Americans. Good.

Hillary trots out the fallacious “women make 77% of the pay men do” line. Democrats really are stuck in the 1960s.

Obama hits again on Bill Clinton misrepresenting his record, while saying he doesn’t want to go through that again. Cheap shots the president and vice president.

Edwards: Who will be able to compete with John McCain all over America? (Remember back in 2004 when the Democrats thought it was important for a candidate to be a war veteran?)

Obama: “…Believes deeply in the precepts of Jesus Christ.”

Remember the kerfuffle from the left when George W. Bush mentioned Jesus in a debate in 2000?

Edwards: Brings up McCain again. Dangerous to send someone against McCain who has taken money from lobbyists.

Obama goes after Hillary’s claim to be “ready on day one” to deal with national security. Hits her for voting for the war in Iraq. “I wouldn’t hesitate to strike anyone who threatened American security.” Spouts some cliches about “rebuilding our alliances and reputation in the world.”

Question: If he were alive, why should MLK endorse you?

Edwards: I’m against poverty, for more people voting.

Obama: I don’t think Dr. King would endorse any of us, he would hold us accountable.

Hillary: Change comes from the efforts of the American people. Drops some names. There was a meeting of morality and politics, political leaders finally responded. I intend to make his legacy real.

Debate mercifully ends.

Others:
Here’s Michelle Malkin’s blow-by-blow description of the debate.
Politico has a partial transcript

A few excerpts from Senator Barack Obama’s speech yesterday at the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta (via RealClearPolitics), with some quick thoughts on what he had to say:

We have a deficit when CEOs are making more in ten minutes than some workers make in ten months; when families lose their homes so that lenders make a profit; when mothers can’t afford a doctor when their children get sick.

A classic left wing appeal to class warfare, not very unifying. And we have millions of families living in their own homes because lenders, which exist to make a profit, offered them mortgages.

We have a deficit in this country when there is Scooter Libby justice for some and Jena justice for others; when our children see nooses hanging from a schoolyard tree today, in the present, in the twenty-first century.

Not sure what he means there; Scooter Libby suffered severely for failing to recollect accurately what he said to a few reporters. And while seeing a noose hung from a tree is a bad thing, it pales in comparison to six thugs beating one kid unconscious because of the color of his skin. Obama appears to have no feelings about that, the real crime in Jena.

We have a deficit when homeless veterans sleep on the streets of our cities; when innocents are slaughtered in the deserts of Darfur; when young Americans serve tour after tour of duty in a war that should’ve never been authorized and never been waged.

We wonder why Obama is so concerned about innocents in Darfur, where there is no U.S. national interest at stake, while simultaneously so unconcerned about the innocents in Iraq, whom he wants to abandon to terrorist killers.

And of course, homeless policy really changed in this country when Obama’s liberal colleagues, such as the ACLU argued that people have a right to live on the streets.

And we have a deficit when it takes a breach in our levees to reveal a breach in our compassion;

To the contrary, there was a huge outpouring of compassion from all over America after hurricane Katrina. This thoughtless regurgitation of the conventional wisdom on Katrina isn’t very unifying.

But of course, true unity cannot be so easily won. It starts with a change in attitudes – a broadening of our minds, and a broadening of our hearts.

It’s not easy to stand in somebody else’s shoes. It’s not easy to see past our differences. We’ve all encountered this in our own lives. But what makes it even more difficult is that we have a politics in this country that seeks to drive us apart – that puts up walls between us.

….

We can no longer afford to build ourselves up by tearing someone else down. We can no longer afford to traffic in lies or fear or hate. It is the poison that we must purge from our politics; the wall that we must tear down before the hour grows too late.

We can’t afford to tear someone else down – unless he’s talking about CEOs, lenders, insurance companies, companies that create life-saving medications, supporters of the liberation of Iraq, Scooter Libby, President Bush, Republicans…

But if changing our hearts and minds is the first critical step, we cannot stop there. It is not enough to bemoan the plight of poor children in this country and remain unwilling to push our elected officials to provide the resources to fix our schools. It is not enough to decry the disparities of health care and yet allow the insurance companies and the drug companies to block much-needed reforms. It is not enough for us to abhor the costs of a misguided war, and yet allow ourselves to be driven by a politics of fear that sees the threat of attack as way to scare up votes instead of a call to come together around a common effort.

Speaking of lies and fear, that left-wing bromide about schools must qualify. The idea that elected officials are unwilling to provide funding for education has to be one of the most obvious, yet most frequently uttered, falsehoods ever. Has it ever occurred to the senator that maybe, when schools are spending over $10,000 per student, it is not a lack of funding that leads some students to under-perform?

And again, not very unifying talk to demonize the companies that create all the life-saving medications that people use every day to extend and better their lives, or to accuse people of talking about the threat of Islamist terrorism merely to scare up votes.

The Scripture tells us…

Where are all those on the left who scream about “separation of church and state” and “Theocracy!” every time a conservative utters the mildest religious reference? Yet here we have someone on the left giving a campaign speech in an actual church on Sunday morning. The double standard could not be more glaring. But what else is new? As we’ve noted many times on this site, by and large the left isn’t against religion in politics, as long as it’s left-wing religion. They’re against conservatives in politics.

The only place where Obama seemed to deviate from liberal boilerplate was in a small pitch for personal responsibility near the end:

All of us will be called upon to make some sacrifice. None of us will be exempt from responsibility. We will have to fight to fix our schools, but we will also have to challenge ourselves to be better parents. We will have to confront the biases in our criminal justice system, but we will also have to acknowledge the deep-seated violence that still resides in our own communities and marshal the will to break its grip.

At the risk of ending his political career, he sounds like Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, or Rush Limbaugh there. This is the kind of talk that conservatives, especially conservative blacks, are demonized for by the left.

But on the whole, Obama seems to have thought very little outside the box of boilerplate leftism. For a man who wants to portray himself as a unifying agent of change, he ought to make more effort to see outside that box. This was an eloquent, well delivered speech, but on the substance much of it was troubling.

It’s pretty ironic to see Democrat Senator Dick “Pol Pot” Durbin telling someone else to tone down their rhetoric:

Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), the second-ranking party leader in the Senate, says President Bill Clinton’s comments about Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) are getting “too personal” and called on the former president to refrain from attacking Obama’s integrity.

Recall, Durbin is the guy who, on the Senate floor no less, chose to compare U.S. servicemen working at Guantanamo Bay to the Nazis, Pol Pot, and Stalin a couple of years ago. Not to mention all the horrible things the Democrats have said about President Bush over the years. But liberals are nothing if not shameless.

Overall, a good debate tonight on Fox News, and a pretty strong performance by all but Huckabee. We haven’t seen that much diving for cover since the movie Dodgeball. Hopefully this will damage his vote total Tuesday and beyond.

Mitt Romney was solid and confident in tonight’s debate, probably the best performance he’s had in all the debates. A focus group that Frank Luntz did for Fox showed a really strong positive reaction to Romney (RealClearPolitics has a couple of clips). We’ll find out Tuesday night if this translates into actual votes. His strong showing should help him, but the election is only two days away, so it may have come too late. And, he really needs to keep it at a high level going forward.

Fred Thompson, as usual, was low key but solid and in command of substance and detail. It’s most likely too late for him to catch on and win the nomination, but on pure substance he’s a very strong candidate.

Rudy Giuliani also gave some strong answers; his answer about it being more compassionate to get people off welfare dependency was quite good, but he seemed to be sort of out of the mix, stuck both literally and metaphorically down away from the front-runners at the other end of the table. He seemed somehow very far away from his favored status of just a few months ago.

It helped the debate greatly that Ron Paul wasn’t there. He has no shot at winning the Republican nomination, and his often wacky foreign policy pronouncements would have been a much better fit at the Democratic debate, or maybe at one of the lefty nutroots blogs.

McCain may have won the night simply by not losing. He didn’t show the somewhat self-righteous bad temper that made an appearance on ABC last night, which made his performance much better. But he did get bogged down some in trying to explain his past support for amnesty and opposition to tax cuts. So not terrible, not great, but maybe, maybe enough to hold off Romney on Tuesday.

Reaction roundup:
Michelle Malkin has a liveblog blow-by-blow.

Hugh Hewitt, unsurprisingly but not unreasonably, has some positive reaction to Romney’s performance. Good point about the ability to debate Obama in the fall. Senator Obama didn’t say much we agree with last night, but he does say it very well. Unfortunately, well-delivered left-wing boilerplate holds some sway with those who don’t pay close attention.

And more via memeorandum