Home > World News > The World Newser
The World Newser
World News' Daily Blog

« Previous | Main | Next »

Live blogging off Tuesday night's GOP debate

May 15, 2007 12:27 PM

10:33 pm: Highlights? Giuliani found his voice, but still not great on the abortion issue. McCain and Romney got into some fun tangles - and both sides can rightly claim to have scored points. And the second tier is getting restless.

Read The Note tomorrow morning for more coverage and analysis. See you next time.

--

10:27 pm: Tancredo has no problems with torture. "I'm looking for Jack Bauer." Bonus points for a Fox reference.

--

10:16 pm: Brit Hume offers up an insanely complicated scenario to ask McCain about torture - this is McCain's wheelhouse, like Giuliani's 9/11. But Rudy responds with a 9/11 recollection: "I'd say 'every method they could think of' " to stop the attack.

--

10:08 pm: How's this confederate flag issue going to play out? This won't be the last we hear of it in this campaign.

--

10:06 pm: Big score by Giuliani - and this could be the moment he was looking for, in taking on Paul over his 9/11 comments. The look in his eyes - and great political instincts by Rudy to sense the political opportunity. Even Romney, the smoothest of debaters, was clamoring for 30 seconds to respond by the time Giuliani was done.

--

10:03 pm: Key point on the abortion question - it's a make-or-break issue for a big enough segment that, yes, it matters in the Republican primary. But I agree - the issue is getting over-covered - though these things are cyclical, so it'll fade and reemerge with time.

--

10:01 pm: Now this is what a debate is all about. Romney tees off on McCain: "McCain-Kennedy would do to immigration what McCain Feingold has done to . . . money and politics. And that's bad." But McCain fights back: "I haven't changed my position on even-numbered years, or have changed because of the different offices I may have been running for." Get the feeling that both sides would like a direct fight?

--

9:56 pm: Tom Tancredo agrees that the Big Three are "soft" on immigration - not a shocker. But then he goes further in attacking some of his rivals for flip-flops - displaying some frustration that seems to be shared by the second tier: "I trust those conversions when they happen on the road to Damascus, and not on the road to Des Moines."

--

9:46 pm: Romney is running against his home state again. "In the toughest of states, I made the toughest of decisions." "Massachusetts" is a curse word for many Republicans, so why not?

--

9:42 pm: Gilmore names names. Giuliani, Huckabee, and Romney aren't conservatives, he says, giving voice to the frustrations of many Republicans. But Giuliani goes after Hillary instead of defending himself. A missed opportunity? Or part of his campaign theme - a Republican who can bring the country together?

--

9:37 pm: Interesting point HH - and don't forget how much trouble President Bush got in when he said in 2004 that you can't "win" the war on terror.

--

9:33 pm: Jim Gilmore hints at some news! Looks like he's going to name names of candidates who aren't really conservatives tomorrow on his Web site. Think that Giuliani and Romney are nervous?

--

9:31 pm: Gotta love Ron Paul for at least bringing a diversity of ideas to the table. Try to find another candidate in either party who would spike the Department of Homeland Security.

--

9:29 pm: I wouldn't expect the emergency response question tonight - Giuliani was probed fairly extensively on the issue on Fox News on Sunday.

--

9:27 pm: Rudy Giuliani claims to have "lowered spending" in New York City - big asterisk has to be there for that to be accurate. Spending went up a healthy $9 billion over Giuliani's eight years a mayor.

--

9:24 p.m: McCain's "drunken sailor" line got a good laugh - it's not new, since he uses on the campaign trail fairly regularly, but it gets a reliable response from Republican audiences. But a better - and, I think, original line from Mike Huckabee: "We have a Congress that's spend money like John Edwards at a beauty shop."

--

9:17 pm: Second-tier candidates look for breakthrough moments - was that Duncan Hunter's attempt? "I think the other guys ought to lay out their credentials to be commander-in-chief."

--

9:12 pm: Sam Brownback scored the first blow at a Democrat - condemning Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for saying the war "is lost." And Rudy Giuliani was right behind him - clearly a talking point for both of them, to take on the Democrats, even though this is a Republican debate.

--

9:06 pm: McCain got the first question - and, tellingly, no mention of Falwell, whom he once famously labeled an "agent of intolerance." But no backing down from his Iraq position: "I will be the last man standing if necessary."

--

Starting now on Fox News Channel...

--

I'm Rick Klein, ABC's new senior political reporter and author of The Note. I'll be blogging live off of tonight's debate starting at 9 pm - log on while you're watching, and feel free to be part of the conversation by adding your thoughts in the comments section.

First thing I'll be looking for: Who will be the first candidate to pay homage to Jerry Falwell?

May 15, 2007 in Political Radar | Permalink | Share | User Comments (16)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Is this being braodcast on tv - and where

Posted by: jch | May 15, 2007 4:53:51 PM

Good to see abc is doing this

Posted by: handy-andy | May 15, 2007 5:17:13 PM

The moderators should ask why rudy had placed the emergency operations center in the world trade center after it was bombed

Posted by: lowT | May 15, 2007 5:24:39 PM

All candidates speak of winning the war in Iraq. Yet no one defines what exactly constitutes a win.
The question is - will they have to define what a "win" is to have a chance at winning the election

Posted by: hh | May 15, 2007 5:29:39 PM

I am talking about winning the war in Iraq. The White House has defined a win several times - and keeps changing the definitions. Should be expect anything different from this field of candidates?
Once out of Iraq we can then focus on fighting the never-ending battle on terror.

Posted by: hh | May 15, 2007 5:47:16 PM

The abortion debate is getting old. How many people vote on that issue alone?

Posted by: chotdog | May 15, 2007 5:58:19 PM

Anyone that believes Gulliani took it to Paul over 911 needs to think things through. Paul won the fox news poll, and currently is trouncing the competition in the MSNBC poll, with a remarkable positive rating edge as well as a much lower negative rating than all other candidates. Ron Paul is the ONLY, and I repeat ONLY candidate, that can win in 2008. He represents TRUE Republican values.

Posted by: Paul08 | May 15, 2007 7:21:01 PM

Wow, Ron Paul totally owned Giuliani! Giuliani thinks terrorists are attacking us because we are free? That's insane. Ron Paul taught him a thing or two about global politics and then he schooled Hannity after the debate. I thought Hannity was going to cry. The media can't spin this one for Giuliani. The people can see who won that debate.

Posted by: John | May 15, 2007 9:24:05 PM

Ron Paul was exactly right about why we're such a target for terrorists.

That's why he's winning all the polls.

Posted by: Chris | May 15, 2007 9:27:00 PM

The facsist dept of homeland security should be "spiked" as you put it.

Go Ron Paul! He was the only candidate up there who didnt seem as phoney as a 3 dollar bill.

Posted by: TruckIt! | May 15, 2007 9:29:17 PM

It's funny, because Ron Paul seems to always get the least amount of air time, but he almost always gets the victory. It's because his message rings true for the true majority. His supporters are the Americans that have done their homework on what the real issues are. It really is wonderful. The mainstream media can't hide the freedom message forever.

Ron Paul FTW!!!

Posted by: Joseph Arrington | May 15, 2007 9:34:48 PM

Ron Paul won the first GOP debate also and anyone who watched the debate knows it.
MSNBC Lying:
http://buenosairesenglish.blogspot.com/2007/05/why-is-msnbc-lying.html http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/ron_paul_demolishes_other_republicans_in_online_polls/
ABC tried to hide Ron Paul victory also:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/BeSeenBeHeard/popup?id=3135373
CSPAN Has Ron Paul victory:

Posted by: abitarecatania | May 15, 2007 9:39:42 PM

Which is it Rudy,

if we attacked Iraq because Al-qaida was there, then doesn't that mean Al-qaida was there BEFORE 9/11???

If not then why did we attack Iraq?

Terrorism does not occur in a vacuum.
When was the last time sqitzerland got attacked? They're free, democratic and rich, so why was it us instead??

Posted by: Mick | May 15, 2007 9:53:20 PM

I thought as a whole it was a very good debate. Much better than the first one and I did not expect that from Fox News. On that note, Ron Paul was the only person to stand up and say what everyone is thinking. I really hope they give him a chance because he is a light at the end of a very very dark tunnel.

Posted by: Phil | May 15, 2007 10:46:20 PM

I am a die hard "Lib" and even i can see that Ron Paul is the real deal. I don't agree with him own many things, but I can see the man it at least honest and willing to stand up for what he believes instead of pandering. If he represent what a true conservative is I have to admire that.

Posted by: Tony | May 16, 2007 6:15:42 AM

Ron Paul may or not be right about the connection of the 2001 attack to American foreign policy, but the accident of Giuliani being mayor of New York at the time doesn't make him an foreign policy expert in any sense. Like most of the candidates, he is continues to shamelessly exploit an American tragedy for political advantage.

Posted by: Norman | May 16, 2007 3:55:46 PM

Post a comment