Media Notes Archive   |   Live Q&As   |   RSS Feeds RSS   |  E-mail Kurtz  |  Style Section
Page 3 of 4   <       >

This Cracks Me Up

Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

"There are obvious tactical reasons for Romney to run as a conservative. But sometimes you can't help wishing he'd run more authentically--as the moderate technocrat he is at heart."

Mitt, who initially refrained from talking much about Massachusetts, made a positive impression on the Atlantic's Marc Ambinder:

"At long last, Romney defended and touted and bragged about the singular political and policy accomplishment of his tenure as Massachusetts governor: the health care system reform that provides every resident there with insurance. Watching him at other debates, it was easy to get the sense that he wasn't sure how to integrate his Massachusetts experience into his campaign narrative. The plan itself was written with the help of Heritage Foundation experts but it did not, in the end, comport with every conservative principle.

"But it stands out as an prime example -- perhaps the ultimate example -- of conservative governance. Romney worked hard at health care in Massachusetts; he worked with Democrats; he worked with Republicans; he wound up with a novel program that, while not perfect and not transferable to other states, stands out as a real accomplishment. Romney calls himself an executive and a manager; with health care, he executed and managed in real time. At their Michigan debate, Republicans seemed a bit reality-deaf and barely acknowledged the sense of economic dislocation that middle class Republicans feel; Romney demonstrated that, given the right scenario, he can connect with those voters better than just about any candidate up there."

John McCain--you know, the guy who all the pundits said over the summer was dead in the water--continues to garner positive reviews. Here's Captain Ed:

"I'd have to say that Thompson did even better than in his first debate. He answered Giuliani's criticism of his earlier votes on tort reform by arguing for federalism, and he skewered the laziness smear effectively. Giuliani gave the classic Rudy approach, with 'You gotta be kidding me' when Brit Hume suggested that people see no difference between Hillary and himself. Romney scored points for himself when he noted that Hillary has never run anything in her life, while he has run a state, a successful business, and an Olympics that had almost collapsed from the weight of its own corruption.

"This debate, however, went to John McCain. He gave better answers on the specifics of foreign policy. He noted that his leadership has been tested in ways that none of the candidates on stage with him have ever had to face."

National Review's Mark Hemingway also singles out the Arizonan:

"McCain really deserves to be back in the top tier. His performance was very strong, he was nimble and funny, and made a good case for why conservative voters need to reevaluate him. Ultimately the differences may stem more from John McCain's (admittedly self-cultivated) media narrative than substantive differences between him and the conservative base. Given the alternatives, McCain's reliability on the two most important issues -- fiscal responsibility and national security -- should cause conservative voters to look at him anew. His big handicap is that he comes off as low energy relative to the other candidates."

Kate O'Beirne has a print-magazine piece urging another look at Johnny Mac:

"Republicans are . . . being told that during these perilous times they should be willing to prioritize a concern with national security over social issues. Voters need not make that tradeoff if they support McCain, who has both a pro-life record and more national-security experience than Giuliani. McCain is a conservative whose heterodox views on campaign-finance reform and immigration are shared by the more liberal Giuliani. With the defeat of the 'comprehensive' immigration bill he championed, McCain recognizes that the public demands concrete enforcement measures -- and he now pledges to secure the border before pressing for the legalization of illegal aliens. (He will, of course, have to convince conservatives that he is a genuinely reformed reformer committed to an 'enforcement first' agenda.)

"Finally, McCain is in a long-term, stable second marriage and talks to all his children, although not as frequently as he would like. One son is a midshipman at the Naval Academy and another is an enlisted Marine serving in Iraq."


<          3        >


© 2007 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive