Univision Debate Reaction

Blah.

Not that it was bad, mind you, but nowhere near as exciting and confrontational as the previous debate. Also, hearing the answers through a translator was bad. Quite often, the translators would not be able to finish the candidates' remarks before the next question began, leading to some missed words. Just another reason why the translator method is a bad idea.

George should be very happy he was at the auditorium and not subjected to the translators (or was he?).

Aside from Ron Paul (a given), none of the candidates really hurt their cause last night. The answers were safe, perhaps a bit too general, but the main points were driven home without any big "in your face" statements. I think the awkwardness of the format affected the punch and energy behind much of the responses and limited the amount of interchange that could have presented itself.

Mitt Romney did much better last night than in St. Pete last week, then again he wasn't directly confronted by any of the other candidates. Duncan Hunter was solid (too bad he's not getting more support), as was Mike Huckabee (his "send off" of Michael Moore to Cuba was great) and Rudy Giuliani.

John McCain did very well once again. Give the man credit...when it comes to foreign policy no one can top him. The CAMBIO wristband he sported was awesome, and didn't seem contrived or fake because we all know where he stands on Cuba. Considering that foreign policy is the number one concern of many Americans, McCain deserves serious consideration.

Fred Thompson: where's the energy? You looked tired again last night. A hallmark of a great leader is the ability to inspire and empower. Fred has all the right ideas, but hasn't shown the ability to inspire and empower as he did before he officially entered the campaign. Maybe he'll get the fire back, but it's getting late in the game and his numbers are slipping.

Don't Waffle On Me Now

When I tune in to watch the Univision Republican debate en español tonight, I will be watching, and hoping, for one main thing:

I want the candidates to look the camera right in the eye and in no uncertain terms state their opposition to illegal immigration. Any waffling will draw my ire, you can bet on it.

They'll get the occasional testy question from the moderators, Univision news anchors Jorge Ramos and Maria Elena Salinas (who actively support leniency for illegals), and likely elicit boos from a large portion of the audience at the BankUnited Center on the UM campus.

A side note: Just as those on the far-right (Tom "Miami is Third World" Tancredo and the likes) who denounce everything immigrant-related are clueless and out of line with rational thought, so are those who want to label all proponents of tougher immigration laws as "anti-immigrant". Check out Maria Elena Salinas' web site, and in her columns, notice how many times she makes that reference towards Republicans who want secure borders and immigration laws enforced. I personally like Salinas (her compañero Jorge Ramos is another story). Her rags-to-riches immigrant story is quintessentially American and one that I can relate to. I commend her for reaching her lofty goals. She is smart and responsible, except she falls into the same rhetorical trap regarding the immigration issue.

That's why my main desire for this evening is that the candidates clearly express, as they've done many times, that they are not anti-immigrant, but anti-illegal immigration. Is that so hard to understand? Or is it just a matter of people ignoring a logical argument just because it hurts fellow Hispanics?

All this talk about losing the Hispanic vote is overblown because, let's face it, Hispanics, except for Cuban-Americans...God Bless Us! ;)...vote overwhelmingly Democrat. The 40% that voted for Bush in 2004 appeared to be an anomaly. Give us straight talk and straight, honest answers, and let those who don't want to believe it walk away. That's what the majority of Americans want.

I Like MIke

Here is my personal ranking of the Republican presidential candidates on their performance in last night's CNN YouTube debate.

First, the top 3:

1. Mike Huckabee
2. John McCain
3. Rudy Giuliani

Huckabee was solid as a rock last night. His answers, the steady and assured way in which he answered them and the resolute look in his face as he stated his responses looked like someone who's ready to take charge. His spanking of Mitt Romney regarding his Arkansas policy of making children of illegal immigrants eligible for merit scholarships was something to behold. His answer to the extremely hypothetical "what would Jesus do" about capital punishment was as honest and charmingly self-deprecating as it was sensible.

McCain and Giuliani were also very good. Actually McCain really surprised me last night. He made Romney look bad with the torture question, and he sounded like someone with nothing to lose, even if I don't agree totally with his answers. Giuliani didn't hurt himself at all with his performance, but he ought to be looking behind his shoulder at the hard-charging Mike Huckabee. His "sanctuary mansion" comment to Romney was rather shallow, which Romney inexplicably couldn't stand up to (more on Romney below). If he doesn't do better next week, we could be seeing a very close two-man race between Huckabee and the ex-mayor.

The middle tier of 2:

4. Fred Thompson
5. Duncan Hunter

Thompson didn't do badly, but I can't help to think that his star has peaked. I didn't see the fire and commitment in his eyes like I saw before he officially entered the campaign. Quite frankly, he looked tired last night. Hunter was good but didn't get enough chances to prove himself. Hunter could have easily overtaken Thompson in the ranking.

And now the last 3:

6. Tom Tancredo
7. Mitt Romney
8. Ron Paul

Tom "Miami is Third World" Tancredo did nothing to dispel the notion that he's a one-trick pony. Take away the immigration issue, and his answers are pedestrian and give the impression that he knows he has no chance to win.

Mitt Romney was by far the biggest disappointment of the debate. He stammered when challenged. He looked bad in one-on-ones with Huckabee, Giuliani and McCain. Basically, he was insecure when pressed, not a good sign for a potential commander-in-chief.

Ron Paul, of course, was last. He's also a one-trick pony, except he lives in La-La land with his isolationist "let's mind our own business and let the Middle East do whatever it wants" attitude. How some can take him seriously is beyond me.

I'm looking forward to next week's debate here in Coral Gables, and I'll provide new rankings
following that debate.