Republican men in suits

The big surprise of the Fox network's Republican Debate in South Carolina was the confronting nature of the questions directed at the ten presidential candidates. Of course, there could be an agenda there. Clearly, at debate's end, very clearly, there was disappointment that the phone votes favourite had been Ron Paul and not Mitt Romney. The Fox anchor team made no secret of their preference for Romney and sniped that Paul's team must have been the quickest on the speed-dial to get those votes in. So saying, they made a mockery of their very own voting system. If it is a competition of candidates' teams phoning in, well, it is all pretty meaningless and there is really no point in the viewers thinking they are having a say. On the other hand, it could just be that the people out there preferred the old-school Libertarian Republican who has an uncompromising stance on almost everything. The veteran congressman from Texas is what his supporters call "the real maverick" of the Republicans - the right-wing version of Dennis Kucinich - and he really stirred up the debate.


Ron Paul stands alone against the war on Iraq, claiming that the Republican party has "lost its way". It had a long history as an anti-war party which once believed in making friends, talking, negotiatiating and trading with the world. He tried to explain that the 9/11 attack was not, as the Bush administrations keeps asserting, because Islam hates American values but, rather, because "we are over there" interfering in their countries, bombing and provoking hostility. He added "we're now building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican". Hmm. I didn't know that.

Giuliani, who has "owned" 9/11 as a political issue since handling the crisis as NY Mayor, leapt on Paul's statement, his face contorting as he sought to control his rage - mouth a thin line of fury, eyes slits of burning coal. He could not and would not hear Paul's rationale, interpreting it as a simple "we brought it on ourselves". He called it the most "absurd" explanation he had heard and asked for Paul to retract. Paul did not retract. He reiterated, explaining the concept of "blow-back", using history's examples and concluding "they do it because we are over there".

Paul is a tough old cookie and his views, generally, belong to a bygone era of Republican sentiment. He is also an obstetrician, a pro-lifer and, while he is drawing a lot of attention or, as the Fox reporters put it, "ink", in the media, he is not a viable presidential contender because the mainstream Republicans just don't get him.

So who did come out on top of the Fox debate which, by the way, seemed fraught with some technical colour and definition shortcomings.

Well, it was not Duncan Hunter from who is still obsessed by the border fence but did get in a good rant about the 1.8 million US jobs lost to China saying "the arsenal of democracy is leaving these shores and we need to bring it back".

It was not Virginian Jim Gilmore who bragged "I've been a consistent conservative my entire life" and plugged his website and blog. Yawn.
When asked why it was the line-up of candidates was so like the membership of a country club, devoid of woman or minorities, he could only, again, brag about himself, citing his "reach out" to Hispanic and African-Americans.
Of course it was an excellent question. The candidates are all Christian white men in suits.


It was not Tom Tancredo from Colorado who claimed to have been getting "conversions" about immigration and gun control but "I'd trust them on the road to Damascus and not the road to Des Moines". He also claimed that there was still scientific doubt about global warming but "if it's true..." I find Tancredo just a bit creepy.

It was not Tommy Thompson. He is a particularly rigid man, barely moves more than his mouth when talking. His claim to fame was: "I'm the only candidate up here that has over 1,900 vetoes". A positive record of the negative?

It was not Sam Brownback from Kansas who, asked if abortion could be an option for a rape victim, replied: "I don't think so, and I think we can explain it when we look at it for what it is, a beautiful child of a loving God that we ought to protect in all circumstances." He should try being a rape victim some time.

It was not front-runner Rudy Giuliani who gave one a very scary insight into the Republican aggression by generating resounding applause when he said he would, in the case of another attack on the US, "tell them to use any method they could think of" to extract information from detainees.

This was in response to a hypothetical which had produced much endorsement of a thing called "enhanced interrogation".
It would seem to be euphemistic newspeak for "torture".

John McCain was the only one adamantly opposed to torture. He spoke eloquently about the way in which it diminishes a nation, the way in which it sets an example for treatment of one's own prisoners in enemy hands... He was statesmanlike in this context - but it was not what the audience wanted to hear. McCain is as much a dead man for not following the popular line as is Giuliani for his stand on a woman's right to choose. This time round, however, Giuliani expressed it thus: “You want to keep government out of people’s lives, or government out of people’s lives from the point of view of coercion, you have to respect that.”


"Flip-flop Mitt" did not acquit himself particularly well in this debate, I thought. He was back-footed on his abortion flip-flop, was all for "enhanced interrogation techniques" , had an illogical solution for the legalising of America's 12 million illegal immigrants and was just to bit too keen on sniping at other candidates. There was quite a lot of sniping in this debate.
Interestingly, in his post-debate interview, the Mormon made a very telling Freudian slip: "The missionary, er military..."


This, surprisingly, leaves Mike Huckabee, governor of Arkansas. He scored the one laugh of the night saying “we’ve had a Congress that’s spent money like John Edwards at a beauty shop.”
He said a few sage things: "It takes more money to do it over than it does to do it right." We're now seeing that in the United States. We're doing a lot of things over. Maybe we should have just done it right."
He presented very well, calm, articulate and quite good looking. He is, however, a Baptist minister.

At debate's end, it was clear that, well, they're all fierce Republicans who want tax cuts. They were still white Christian men in suits, all of them wanting to be the most powerful man in the world. The back runners are due to fall by the wayside very soon, especially if rumour comes true and Newt Gingrich throws his hat into the ring.