A Values Voter Debate Review

18 Sep, 2007 by John Hawkins

Print this article Font size -16+

You may not realize it, but there was another debate last night. It was the “Values Voter” debate and if you didn’t hear about it, it was probably because it was carried on a tiny TV network most people don’t have and because the four top tier contenders didn’t show up.

However, I, in the interest of serving you, the RWN reader, did manage to catch most of the debate via a video feed. However, the debate was *** 3 HOURS LONG *** so, part of it, I listened to while I ate dinner without seeing the feed. Also, I missed a bit of it while I answered a couple of phone calls in the middle of it.

Still, let me give you a few of my impressions of the debate…

* It was interesting to see a debate where they opened with a church choir singing a song, gave the candidates plenty of time to answer, and none of the top contenders were there to hog all the air time. Giving the 2nd tier candidates a chance to have their say was a plus.

* Alan Keyes was at this debate and it was like he was running for minister of the United States, instead of President. His voice kept going up and down, getting thunderous and soft; he was doing these hand gestures and movements all night long, and he must have said “God” 100 times over the course of the night. It’s like he figured, “Okay, I am at a Values Voter debate, so I should work God into every second or third sentence somehow.”

Let’s just say that he came off more like a fired-up TV preacher than he did a candidate for President.

* Shorter Ron Paul: “Neocons! Gold Standard! Constitution! Constitution! Constitution! Just War! They’ve over here because we’re over there!”

Also, at one point, I don’t have a transcript in front of me, but he seemed to be saying in so many words, that you couldn’t be a Christian and support the war in Iraq.

Either way, giving Ron Paul more time to speak only made him seem even nuttier than normal. By that, I mean if you sat Ron Paul on a stool and on another stool, you had a bowl of peanuts, and you said, “Which is nuttier?” — most people would be completely stumped.

* John Cox was at this debate and, believe it or not, he came across fairly well — better than say Sam Brownback, Tommy Thompson, or James Gilmore. Of course, since Tommy Thompson and James Gilmore are out while Brownback might as well be, that’s not a big compliment. But still, Cox seemed like a decent enough guy, the sort of guy you could support if he ran for a congressional seat.

* They had a question about the North American Union and I was extremely disappointed that none of the candidates had the moral courage to tell people that there was nothing to worry about. Instead, they all sidestepped the issue, talked about sovereignty, etc., etc., which is fine as far as it goes, but to me, it’s the equivalent of Democratic contenders not having the guts to confront Truthers who ask them questions.

* There were a couple of odd aspects to the debate. Number one, they asked questions to empty podiums that were supposed to represent Mitt, McCain, Rudy, and Fred. Obviously, they didn’t get an answer, but I kept thinking how weird it must have felt to be reading a question to an empty podium.

Also, a couple of times during the debate, they made note of the fact that they asked better questions than any of the other debates. That seems a little “try-hard” to me. I mean sure, you may think you ask better questions, but, in the middle of the debate, to be complimenting yourself on how great you are at asking questions…geeze.

* An innovative feature of the debate was that they had the audience vote on how much they liked each answer and they had “delegates” deciding who won the debate. However, I haven’t been able to find the tally anywhere online, which sort of defeats the purpose.

I don’t see anything at the top of WND (Joseph Farah moderated the debate) or at the American Family Association, where I watched the debate — so where are the ratings? Maybe I am just missing them.

* If I had to pick a winner of the debate, I would go with Mike Huckabee. He’s a former minister (which made him right at home with the crowd he was trying to reach here) and the man has a silver tongue — he is just great in these debates.

* Loser of the debate? I’m torn between wacky Ron Paul and Alan Keyes, who probably slept like a baby after waving his arms around all night and shouting every third sentence.

* Here is an article from WorldNetDaily on the debate.

*** Update #1 ***: Apparently Huckabee won in a landslide, but there aren’t many other details so far.