Anybody watch the GOP debate tonight?

dilbert · Senior Member

Anybody watch the GOP debate tonight?

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

It was on channel 209 which we don't get. Grr....

Randy · Senior Member

dilbert wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did anybody stand out, or was it pretty much 10 guys asserting that they all stand for the same things, but each trying to come across as standing for those things more than the rest?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well there was a lot of that (stand for the same things, but each trying to come across as standing for those things more than the rest) but there was also some stark divisions. Ron Paul was the one most obviously unlike the rest. Rudy Giuliani was indifferent to the issue of abortion, which made him unlike the rest in that regard. Also, Giuliani did not seem to inspire a lot of confidence in his ability to deal with the abortion issue. He was just not very convincing on that point.

Ron Paul was very convincing, and I almost wished we could really live in a world where we could be indifferent to living in a world where everything outside our borders could be a smoking ruin for all we care, with no reason to fear a world that might combine all of its military might against us.

Romney distinguished himself by calmly responding smoothly and with humor when appropriate. Joe Scarborough received numerous emails during the broadcast from Republicans who felt that Romney was outstanding, outshining the other candidates. He seemed to agree with them. Since Romney is already my favorite, I can't give an unbiased assessment of his performance. Suffice it to say he didn't let me down.

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

Most bloggers I am reading say Romney did very well--much better than Giuliani. They like Duncan Hunter, but feel he didn't stand out from the crowd, and think Paul is just too eccentric for prime time.

But they also are all saying that the other big winner is the man who wasn't there: Fred Thompson.

Fregramis · Senior Member

A post debate poll on Drudge Report shows most respondents think Romney won. Romney seemed to me the only guy who didn't stumble on his words; very articulate. Other observations:

1. I really, really, like Chris Matthews, but he moderated the debate like it was Hardball. That was annoying.

2. The question to Romney: "What do you like least about America?". What a trite and negative question. I mean, it is a fair question by itself; the answer may be very revealing. But to select that over other potentially better requests was a mistake.

3. The yes or no questions. This is a debate, not a court room. Most issues are not that dichotomous, and Matthews knows that.

I think if Romney got nominated he would fare very well in a debate, so he passes that test. He looks good, sounds confident and has good voice resonance. Time will tell.

Mahonri · Senior Bucketkeeper

I liked Hunter, Paul and Romney.

Of course you all know that the big $$ (out of my pocket) is with Mitt.

Mitt did well.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

I had Scouts last night, AND besides that, I heard nothing about a debate even being scheduled (dang that evil liberal media!

)

If there is a transcript or replay of it, would someone please post a link so that those of us who missed it can review at our leisure?

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

fear of shiz wrote:

Most bloggers I am reading say Romney did very well--much better than Giuliani. They like Duncan Hunter, but feel he didn't stand out from the crowd, and think Paul is just too eccentric for prime time.

But they also are all saying that the other big winner is the man who wasn't there: Fred Thompson.

Why was Thompson not there? Was he not invited?

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

He isn't officially running yet.

There is a transcript, but I don't have the link at the moment. I'll try and get it later--gotta go earn a living.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

I'm slightly annoyed with Thompson for not being there... it's the type of political stunt that just kinda annoys me, if you're gonna play, join the party... but I know that the white horse, swooping in at the last moment to save the day sort of tactic appeals to a lot of folks.

I heard Romney's answer to the Cattholic bishop question... great answer and so quick! It really felt unrehearsed and yet a great answer.

I also thought the question on believing in Evolution to be highly innappropriate... there were a number of "When did you stop beating your wife" type questions...

--Ray

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

from Fox news article on the debate, talking about a back and forth between Romney and McCain on spending too much focus on getting bin Laden:

McCain shot back, saying bin Laden's responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent Americans. "We will do whatever is necessary. We will track him down. We will catch him. We will bring him to justice and I'll follow him to the gates of hell," he said.
Sorry, the last half of McCain's last sentence is just toooooo good to pass up for a snappy comeback... Let's all say in unison now "Yes, you probably will..."

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

The Republicans (in name only) whove been given the most media attention, Rudolph Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney, came across poorly in my eyes, way behind Texas Congressman Ron Paul and Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo in Thursday nights so called debate.

While Giuliani and the others demonstrated considerable ignorance of whats written in the United States Constitution, Ron Pauls remarks throughout the debate made it clear to Americans that he places principle above politics. Congressman Paul is the only elected official in D.C. who can claim a 100% constitutionally-sound voting record.

Congressman Ron Paul distinguished himself from the other candidates by pointing to the blatant unconstitutionality of the Iraq war. His comments on the wisdom of following the Constitution by being non-interventionist as the Founders intended was the first of many comments that demonstrated his understanding that only a return to constitutionally-based government would restore our republic. Paul spoke to several of the issues the Constitution Party has championed, including abolishing the IRS, repealing the intrusive REAL ID Act, which is not needed in a free society, and ending entitlement programs.

Did anybody notice that several times the liberal democratic moderator Chris Matthews of MSNBC made slurring remarks at Paul's comments. For example, on the issue of whether or not to change the constitution to allow for a Arnold Schwarzenegger to run for President, most said no, and Ron Paul said, "I'm a no, because I am a strong supporter of the original intent." Matthews showed his disgust by sighing, "Oh, God!" I ttribute that rudeness to the fear that Paul's messages may be more seriously taken now that more Americans are waking up to their "awful situation".

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Lund: What the debates demonstrated is how disgusted the Chris Matthews has become with anyone with whom he disagrees. He's completely melted down at this point. ALL of his questions were intended to demean and discredit and marginalize Republican and Conservative causes. From what I've heard, it's pretty clear he's lost it.

--Ray

Randy · Senior Member

Hooray for Ron Paul defending the Constitution.

If I believed that the Constitution could survive if Britain, Australia, Canada, Mexico, Israel, Europe, Latin America, all had their full military efforts bent on the destruction of the United States, I might be persuaded to support him.

However, I'm not quite that optimistic. So I feel I have to support a president who defends the interests of the United States outside our borders.

If the mission of the church is a worthy consideration, then I cannot visualize the church growing or even existing in much of Europe and Asia had we not fought a war outside our borders during World War II. And the forces of evil would not have stopped after gaining complete control over Europe and Asia. They would surely have Africa and Latin America as well. And why not Canada also?

But I guess we'll all see things differently. It has always been so.

Randy · Senior Member

I guess I see it as the difference between the flexible trees and the rigid trees when the hurricane comes. The ones that can bend a bit survive undamaged. The rigid, solid trees that won't bend are broken and destroyed by the winds.

If I have a choice between a Constitution that bends and survives, or stands rigid and dies, I pick the one that bends and survives.

Some of us will feel that we don't have to make that choice. That's fine. That, then, is the essense of the difference between me and you.

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin367.htm

"Without question or reservation, Ron Paul was the clear and obvious winner of the first GOP debate, at least according to the more than eighty-four thousand respondents (at the time of this writing) who took the MSNBC online poll."

It would be nice if someone in the mainstream media would acknowledge that fact. If Paul is given more time to articulate his constitutionalist agenda, he might could win more than the debate--he could win the election. But I expect the media will do its best to prevent this.

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

Uh-huh. Can you say poll spamming?

http://pajamasmedia.com/strawpoll2008/results.php

:eyeroll:

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Mitt ROMNEY!! WOO-HOO!! Love him!!

historian · Senior Member

Randy,

You surprise me saying that you think the Constitution should be flexible. This is an amazingly flexible document -- not much more than a list of who is supposed to do what. Article 1 describes the duties and restrictions on Congress (which is supposed to have the most power and more closely represent the people). Article 2 is about the President, who is to execute the laws the Congress passes, and Article 3 describes the judiciary. Article 4 describes the proper relationship of the states to one another and the central government, and Article 5 is the amendment process. That's very brief, and therefore IMO flexible.

However flexible it is, there are those trying to destroy it. The presidency continues to take on more and more powers. For example, Bush last week signed a treaty that was not previously ratified by the Senate. As this decades old power grab continues, we move away from freedom to rule by a few, or even one.

Looking for a possible parallel in the Book of Mormon, I am reminded of Alma and Amulek telling the people of Ammoniah that their laws had become corrupt. We need to stop the corruption of our laws before we reach such a precarious postition.

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

It is normal for Presidents to sign treaties that are not "previously ratified." The ratification is always afterwards, as far as I know. See the Treaty of Versailles, among others.

And what treaty are you talking about? I haven't seen anything in the news, and don't find anything with a quick search.

historian · Senior Member

Shiz,

You are correct about presidents signing treaties pending ratification, and one example is that Woodrow Wilson signed the League of Nations treaty, which failed to pass in the Senate, and the United States therefore was not part of the League of Nations.

However, in this case, it appears that the Transatlantic Economic Integration treaty signed on April 30 creates a Council that already has action items, and is working to implement them.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55584

Randy · Senior Member

historian wrote:

Randy,

You surprise me saying that you think the Constitution should be flexible.

It's too late to make the Constitution rigid, Historian. We would have to void the Louisiana Purchase (unauthorized by the Constitution), and void the state of West Virginia (created in direct opposition to the Constitution) if we decided to go with the rigid interpretation. All laws since the 1860's would have to be revisited because of the unconstitutional addition of the 14th amendment.

Still, I'm all for adhering strictly to the Constitution, except for those times that the Constitution would cease to exist by such strict adherence. If strict adherence to the Constitution creates an opening for jihadists to destroy the country, the Constitution would cease to have any meaning whatsoever.

-- Edited by Randy at 15:17, 2007-05-14

historian · Senior Member

Randy wrote:

It's too late to make the Constitution rigid, Historian.

Randy, I'm sorry that I wasn't more clear. I don't want a rigid Constitution, and meant to imply that it is not rigid, and was never meant to be rigid.

Yes, Thomas Jefferson reportedly said that he feared that he had "bent the Constitution to the breaking point" by making the Louisiana Purchase. While it was not authorized, neither was it forbidden, and the country did acquire more land after that without anyone worrying about the Constitutional implications.

Since we regard the Constitution as an inspired document, then I think we would be far safer adhering to it, than by claiming that we know a better way.

I remain very concerned that the presidency continues to accumulate powers designated to the Congress, or to the states, or to the people. That's a scary trend. Where will it end?

Randy · Senior Member

Historian, I generally agree with you.

Ron Paul and his supporters seem to have a more rigid view of the Constitution. That was what I was reacting to.

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

OK, that wasn't a "treaty." More a statement of common interests and purposes. And I don't see anything legally binding in it. Take a look for yourself here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/04/20070430-4.html

Keep in mind that worldnetdaily has their own agenda and worldview.

arbilad · Head Chef

fear of shiz wrote:

OK, that wasn't a "treaty." More a statement of common interests and purposes. And I don't see anything legally binding in it. Take a look for yourself here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/04/20070430-4.html

Keep in mind that worldnetdaily has their own agenda and worldview.

And the whitehouse doesn't have an agenda or worldview?
Whether or not the wording has anything legally binding, if they are already going forward with it, it makes no difference. I don't consider unconstitutional laws legally binding either, but you can bet your left thumb that until the Supreme Court declares them illegal I'd be in trouble for not following them.

Mahonri · Senior Bucketkeeper

After watching the debate tonight I've taken Ron Paul OFF of my list of possible candidates. I wanted to ask him what color the sky was in his world tonight.... He doesn't have a clue when it comes to keeping our country safe. He also doesn't have a clue when it comes to 911.

I hope that Duncan Hunter can get into the top tier. At present, Romney is the only viable option in my view.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Anyone else watch the debates last night? What type of questions did they throw at my guy, Mitt? I want to know EVERYTHING!! :)

--Ray

PollyAnna · Senior Bucketkeeper

If you want to know everything... shouldn't you be "watching"???

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Had to take the kids to a book fair. WHen it comes to my kids, politics takes a backseat...

PollyAnna · Senior Bucketkeeper

Good daddy... I am sure you will be rewarded!

Euphrasie · Senior Bucketkeeper

I wanted to watch too (although I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have aired on any of my 7 channels), but I ended up driving to my parents' house to keep an eye on my little brother (he's 12) who came down with the flu this morning, since my parents are in Utah.

Mahonri · Senior Bucketkeeper

Good sister... I'm sure you will be rewarded!

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

...with the flu! biggrin

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Ron Paul came off as a royal nut job -- he makes Alan Keyes and Gary Bauer from 2000 look mainstream! Tancredo came off as a reactionary semi-nut who can spew rhetoric out. McCain and Guliani came off as politicians who can say a lot without saying anything substantial. Huckabee and Gilmore came off looking weak. Hunter came off looking "tough on immigration" because he claimed credit for things he was part of, but otherwise not much more than a blip on the screen. Thompson and Brownback came off as somewhere in the middle of being splats on the windshield and reactionary semi-nuts.

While I don't agree with everything Romney supports right now, I do have to agree with what many analysts have said, and what FOX News post-debate text message poll said... he did very well, and was the only one of the ten who looked like he could fill the shoes of being president.

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

Giuliani's slap-down of Paul was fantastic.

Euphrasie · Senior Bucketkeeper

Ha ha. Very funny Ray. Funny until you hear that my 2yo son was up all night with the bug.

PollyAnna · Senior Bucketkeeper

politicians who can say a lot without saying anything substantial

This is everyone for me... Honest they all sound like drones... both parties!

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

After Ron Paul's comments, does he still have any support here? Classic blame America first attitude turned me off. Gulianni looked really good but I can't stand his politics. I'm still waiting for Fred Thompson to jump in.

Pt314 · Senior Member

salesortonscom wrote:

After Ron Paul's comments, does he still have any support here? Classic blame America first attitude turned me off. Gulianni looked really good but I can't stand his politics. I'm still waiting for Fred Thompson to jump in.

I was somewhat sympathetical to Ron Paul before the debates for many of his constitutionalist views, but not that much anymore. I knew he was an isolationist, but not like this.

arbilad · Head Chef

I'm still very much in favor of Ron Paul. I hope that he gets the Republican nomination. If not, I hope that the Constitution Party will be nominating him.