10/9/2007 GOP Presidential Debate

[Chupacabra]

Who won?

I think Mitt continued to show that he is the sharpest and best qualified candidate.

[Garcia Bronco]

I agree

[W*GS]

Didn't see it.

[Bronco Bob]

Who won?

I think Mitt continued to show that he is the sharpest and best qualified candidate.

He's the prettiest, anyway. :flower:

He did have a laugh out loud and applaud moment for me.

When he likened the debates to Law and Order and said
they have a big cast of characters, it goes on for a long
time, and Fred Thompson shows up at the end.

I don't know what the hell Ron Paul was talking about,
and I have a college education, so I can imagine that
Goober and Gomer working on that automobile under
the shade tree were totally baffled by him.
over either.

[Chupacabra]

nobody? nobody? am i the only one who watches the debates from both sides of the aisle?

[Bronco Bob]

nobody? nobody? am i the only one who watches the debates from both sides of the aisle?

Huh?

[Bob]

Was out last night, and didnt see, will have to see the clips on the Internet......

How did Huckleberry-Hound do?

[Taco John]

I watched it, but nobody wants to hear that I think Ron Paul won the thing with his slam on Romney. The rest of the debate, was a bunch of empty suits pretending to be either conservatives, or presidential.


Rudy Giuliani - How in the hell is a cross-dressing mayor from New York who moved in with two gay dudes and their dog princess going to unify the Republican party behind him when he doesn't share their issues? I just don't see how he can get the Bible belt motivated to vote for him in the primaries, let alone the national election. I think he'll probably do well in the polls where people only have to sit around, wait for a call, and press a button to vote for him, but come election day they'll have better things to do than vote for the lesser of two evils. The east coast media loves this guy so he'll continue to get attention.

Mitt Romney - Too rehearsed. Too forced. Unispiring. His comment about consulting the lawyers is going to haunt him for the rest of the election. That was his Barack Obama moment where he came off looking inexperienced. I have a hard time believing that voters who might go for a pro-war Republican are looking for Massachussetts Mitt as their guy. And sorry, but I think that there are more people in this country who are irrationally biased against mormons than there are bonafide racists. I don't see Mitt getting a lot of Bible belt support because of this. He's the Red Sox to Rudy's Yankee's, so he'll continue to get a lot of attention from the east coast media.

Fred Thompson - He choked early on, but got comfortable down the stretch. The problem is, he didn't really say anything. He said he saw no signs of an economic downturn, which was a goofy thing to say in a state that is suffering a recession. And that's without mentioning the fact that the dollar has sunk lower than the canadian equivalent. Oil prices seem to continue to climb, and the Fed can only cut the rate so much before inflation *really* catches up to us in a serious way. It wasn't ten years ago that you could buy a coke from a machine for fifty cents. Coke hasn't gotten a full dollar more delicious in the last ten years has it? I just can't get excited about a guy who doesn't take the problems that are staring the nation in the face real. He's been in movies and on TV, so he'll naturally get a lot of attention.

John McCain - He pretty much had the most unmemorable performance of the entire debate last night. Fred Thompson pretty well edged him out. The only thing I can remember him saying of any consequence is that if Ron Paul was looking for a candidate to support that would bring our troops home, he's not the one. Bravo senator. Bravo. I can't believe I was so excited about this guy in '99. At the very least, though, I do believe that he's in the race not for ego, but because he's got a vision for America. I'd like him over any of the three previously mentioned candidates.

Brownback - My wife, who doesn't follow politics said it best when she crossed into the room when he was answering a question: "that guy looks like he should be selling cars." I just don't understand what this guy is even doing in a presidential forum. He doesn't seem to have any over-arching theme that connects any of his thoughts together. Like when he was asked if he would support the Republican nominee if he weren't elected, his answer was something along the lines of "only if they're pro-growth and pro-life." Pro-growth? What? I had no idea that there was a pro-shrinking lobby. I don't get this guy. Plus, social conservatives bother me for this reason: they use government to advance their own causes, while pointing fingers at Democrats who use government to advance their own. I'm all for conservative tradition, but let's not use the federal government for this when we can act locally and be more effective. I'd be happy to vote for Brownback as the governor of my state. No thanks on president though.

Huckabee - Ever since this guy started talking about microchipping people, he lost his charm to me. It doesn't matter because after his third quarter numbers came in, he's only auditioning to be a VP for someone. Plus Huckabee comes off as naive to me. He seems like the kind of guy who would be a useful idiot - end up trusting the wrong person and sending the nation down the river. As far as last night's debate went, he got lost in the fray, and didn't confront anyone to gain attention.

Tom Tancredo - I like Tom, and I understand why he's running for president. I would never vote a ticket based on who the VP is, but that said, I'd give anyone smart enough to put this guy on their ticket a second look. I like where he stands on the border, even if it's his only issue. He never got any attention last night, and didn't do anything to attack a front-runner's position and gain notice. His mention that he wouldn't support any of the current leading Republicans was provacative. Ron Paul watchers know that he and Paul are friends, and there is speculation that he'll throw support to the Paul campaign if he doesn't place in Iowa or NH.

Duncan Hunter - Wake me up when this guy does something worth noting. I don't even have anything to say about this guy because I fall asleep when his big mug enters the picture.

and of course...

Ron Paul - Ready to stop the war, and ready to stop the march towards european socialism. I just know too much about his ideas and his plan for America to be objective. Even though the debate moderators ignored him as much as they could, instead focusing on Rudy, Romney, and Thompson, Paul got his shots in. One of the clips of the night was him chastizing Romney for his position on consulting lawyers before going to war. The more he talks about the constitution and the rule of law, the more conservatives start to perk up and consider the possibilities (http://www.redstate.com/blogs/il_tony/2007/oct/10/okay_this_is_a_serious_question). I like where his campaign has gone, and I like where it is going. He's already raised in the last ten days what Huckabee raised in all of the third quarter (http://www.ronpaulgraphs.com/). I think he's got a shot to really upset the field considering how motivated his supporters are in comparison to any of the other Republican nominees.

[CBF1]

nobody? nobody? am i the only one who watches the debates from both sides of the aisle?

Some of us work swing shift :yayaya:

[defenseman]

Status quo was maintained following the results of this debate. The polls, which can be loosely used as a barometer, won't shift but a point or two. It's pretty much a draw across the board from what I can tell. I will say, by january, someone better get serious. Mr. Paul stands to have a significant affect on the next presidential election, and will greatly enhance Hillary's chances of getting elected if status quo is maintained. I could live with him beating her, but, just don't see that one happening...dman

[Bronco Bob]

Status quo was maintained following the results of this debate. The polls, which can be loosely used as a barometer, won't shift but a point or two. It's pretty much a draw across the board from what I can tell. I will say, by january, someone better get serious. Mr. Paul stands to have a significant affect on the next presidential election, and will greatly enhance Hillary's chances of getting elected if status quo is maintained. I could live with him beating her, but, just don't see that one happening...dman

Along those lines:

Alexander Hamilton was an ambitious young striver and created an economy
where people like him could rise and succeed. He used government to rouse
the energies of the merchant class, to widen the circle of property owners
and to dissolve the constraints on commerce and mobility.

Abraham Lincoln was another ambitious young striver. As a young politician,
he championed roads, canals and banks so enterprising farm boys like himself
could ascend and prosper. While he was president, the Republican Party
passed the Homestead Act, which gave people access to property they could
enrich and develop. It passed the Land Grant College Act, so the ambitious
would have access to knowledge. It passed railroad legislation to open vistas
for the young and aspiring.

Margaret Thatcher was another young striver. When she became prime
minister, she gave the British working class access to homes and property so
that they would become more industrious and independent.

You’d think that in this and every election, the Republicans would want to
continue this tradition. You’d think that they’d start every election by putting
themselves at the kitchen tables of middle-class families with ambitious kids.
Their first questions would be: What are the barriers to their mobility? What
concrete help do these people need to realize their dreams?

Yet at the Republican economic debate in Michigan this week, there was no
talk of that. The candidates declared their fealty to general principles: free
trade, lower taxes and reduced spending. They talked a lot about the
line-item veto and the Chinese currency. But there was almost nothing that
touched concretely on the lives of the ambitious working-class parents who
are the backbone of the G.O.P.

Sometimes the candidates seemed more concerned with massaging the
pleasure buttons of the Club for Growth than addressing the real concerns of
the middle class. They talked far more about cutting corporate taxes, for
example, than about a child tax credit for struggling families.

At other times, they sounded as if they were running for a ceremonial post.
The person who is elected president will need concrete proposals, but the
G.O.P. contenders scarcely have them. Mike Huckabee has some sketchy
plans. John McCain answered one element of middle-class anxiety yesterday
with his new health care plan. Others seem to have decided concrete
proposals are for geeks.

In this way, the Republican Party has abandoned the Hamiltonian ground. It
has lost intimate contact with the working-class dreamer who longs to make
good.

Instead this ground is being seized by a Democrat. Over the past few months,
Hillary Clinton has issued a string of specific policy programs aimed directly at
members of the aspiring middle class.

Yesterday, it was a tax credit for college. Earlier in the week, Clinton offered
a plan to give families down the income scale access to 401(k)-style plans.
Right now, 75 million workers have no employee-sponsored pension accounts.
The way our tax code is structured, people up the income ladder get big tax
incentives to save, while working people, who have the most trouble saving,
get the smallest incentives.

Under the Clinton plan, if a family making up to $60,000 a year put $1,000 into
a new 401(k) account, they would get a $1,000 matching tax credit.
The plan would create millions of new investors. Struggling families could
choose mutual fund options and participate in the capital markets.
They’d be encouraged to move away from a month-to-month mentality to a
saving-for-the-future mentality.

Clinton’s plan poaches on economic values that used to be associated with
the Republican Party. Moreover, it undermines the populist worldview that is
building on the left of her party. Instead of railing against globalization and
the economic royalists, Clinton gives working people access to Wall Street
and a way to profit from the global economy.

No Republican would design asset-building plans the way Clinton does. No
Republican would pay for them the way she does. But at least she has a
middle-class agenda. Right now, the general election campaign looks like it’s
going to be a replay of the S-chip debate. The Democrats propose something,
and the Republicans have no alternative.

When Hamilton was alive, big landowners stifled competition and economic
dynamism. Hamilton created national capital markets to smash local
oligarchies. When Lincoln was rising, vast distances retarded trade. The
Whigs, and later Republicans, championed internal improvements to build
national markets. Today, the global information economy makes it hard for
people without human capital to prosper and participate.

There are potential Republican responses to this. But right now the message
is: Proposals? We don’t need no stinkin’ proposals!

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/opinion/12brooks.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

[Rigs11]

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FG2PUZoukfA"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FG2PUZoukfA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>