Tonight’s Debate
Written by Sam on November 28th, 2007God is Mitt Romney awful. I always tell people that John Edwards reminds me of a sleazy used car salesman. Well, I think he and Romney are in business together. The guy is just phony, phony, phony.
I don’t think anybody in particular stood out tonight. I think Fred stumbled over a lot of his words. Rudy wasn’t at his best. McCain gave good answers I thought, but he didn’t seem very excited to be there. It’s time that Tancredo and Hunter call it quits. It’s obvious being so close to Iowa that they aren’t going anywhere so for them to continue to be involved is just wasting time that could be used on the competitive candidates. I would throw Ron Paul in with that as well except he has actually raised a good sum of money and has gained some ground.
The highlight of the evening of course was when Romney and Giuliani got into a tizzy with each other and for a moment I was ready for them to have a physical confrontation.
Oh, and Bill Bennett just said on Fox News that he thought that Romney came across the best tonight as the clear, concise conservative. He must have watched a completely different Republican Youtube debate.
28
PM
No one said, “In case you don’t know, Giuliani said abortion is ‘a constitutional right’ back in April.” What the #$%& is going on here? It’ll cripple him if someone brings that up. Everyone hears Rudy talking about states making their own choices and they think he’s anti-Roe. Why is no one calling him out?
Perhaps Schiller was right when he wrote, “Against stupidity the very gods/ Themselves contend in vain.” Or something like that.
28
PM
I was watching with some undecideds. Most thought McCain did well and Thompson was passable. I thought Thompson’s answers were good, but he didn’t give enough of them. Rudy lost ground, and Romney distinguished himself as the Republican version of John Kerry (a flip-flopping Ken Doll with nice hair).
I still can’t support any of these dudes. If Thompson’s campaign was better or if McCain could go back in time and not support amnesty, I’d be in one of their camps. Alas…
By the way, for all you North Carolina readers, if you feel a collective surge of joy, bliss, and contentment over the weekend, it’s because tomorrow I’m leaving for beautiful Raleigh on a business trip. I think on the way home I’m gonna stop in Columbia, S.C. and try to convince Gov. Sanford to jump into the presidential race. You with me Sam?
29
AM
Big change was Thompson actually looked healthy as opposed to previous debates where he looked sick and thin.
Overall I’d say indecisive. There needs to be a debate moderated by conservatives.
29
AM
Sam, I think Romney did amazingly well, like always. He’s right on all of the issues. Look at his record in Massachusetts and in the business world, and you’ll see everything that you need to know: a natural leader who stood up for life, who opposed same-sex marriage, who brought Massachusetts out of economic peril. And don’t forget his business and Olympic successes. We need him in the White House!
29
AM
These debates continually depress me. All the candidates are so terribly flawed. I was hard-pressed to think that anybody won, because everyone had some awful moments. But I can’t see how anybody watching the debate thought that Romney looked good. (John–that Romney Kool-aid must be delicious.) He was shown to be a hypocrite at every turn. Just the thought of either Romney or Huckabee winning the nomination is just too depressing for words.
29
AM
Sam, you’re right on Romney. He was awful. Too plastic and too smooth.
McCain killed him on waterboarding.
And, Romney’s answer to the “Do you believe everything in the Bible?” question showed he wasn’t able (or wasn’t willing) to discuss the nuances of Christian understanding of sacred scripture.
I watched the debate at the Ron Paul NYC Campaign Headquarters on West 29th St. & 10th Avenue in Manhattan. About 80 people filled the room to standing-room only capacity. This weekend, a number of the folks there are heading to New Hampshire to go door-to-door.
29
AM
Press 7, I am actually heading out to Portland, Oregon tomorrow on a business trip myself, but give Mark my regards.
29
AM
Wow, the NYC Ron Paul headquarters….you guys must talk about how 9/11 may have been an inside job and/or America’s own fault, the evil American “empire”, and how the world would be better off with radical muslims butchering and torturing most of the world. Sounds like a real party.
29
PM
Was any of that rant constructive, or even necessary?
29
PM
I thought so. Didn’t you?
29
PM
This is another Trash the GOP post. Sam has no pretense of even supporting the Republican Party at this stage in the game, let alone saving it.
29
PM
Joe, let me guess. You’re supporting Two Mitts Romney? If he becomes the nominee then we lose in a landslide. He can’t be trusted.
Furthermore, last night’s debate was an absolute joke. Questions about the Confederate flag and gays in the military? Who gives a crap about any of that? Where were the questions on Iraq and Iran, or on health care, or foreign oil dependency, or education, basically stuff everyone actually cares about.
The entire debate was a complete waste of time and it’s no wonder now why the candidates didn’t want to do it in the first place.
29
PM
“if McCain could go back in time and not support amnesty, I’d be in one of their camps. Alas…”
I don’t know where I could have gotten my idea earlier that all you guys dislike about McCain is his support of amnesty for illegals.
Mitt is “a natural leader who stood up for life, who opposed same-sex marriage… we need him in the White House”
Just when you Republicans almost start to get me to listen to your messages of limited government and strong national defense, you pull some of this crap. Even if you think that abortion and same-sex marriage are bad, I don’t see how in our present world that you can think that they’re in the 100 most important issues. We have millions of people around the world who wants us dead or at the very least hate us, dictators who we support being horribly repressive to their citizens, nuclear proliferation in North Korea, millions of Americans who can’t afford to give their children decent medical care or education, and you think that we need someone in the white house who thinks that two men getting married is a major crisis. Yikes. Get your priorities straight. Also, Romney hasn’t been pro-life for terribly long.
30
AM
I think that’s unfair. I thought Sam’s post called it as it was. You want something positive? I thought Tom Tancredo did well last night.
30
AM
ChemistryDave: No I didn’t think your irrelevant cheap shot at Ron Paul’s campaign and his supporters was either necessary or constructive. You very easily could have left well enough alone and gone on with your day. I understand the vast majority of Republicans don’t like Ron Paul and would be more than happy if he just up and disappeared. However, I see no reason to continuously berate, denigrate and alienate his supporters, especially when many of them (such as, say, me) otherwise back the Republican Party.
I apologize if anyone misunderstood my comment as saying anything about Sam’s post. I suppose I should have more clearly indicated to whom I was I speaking. While, I’m on the topic, however, I have to say that I largely agree with what Sam said and if his comments make it a trash the GOP post than the party deserves to be trashed. I don’t believe that the candidates, save Paul, actually believe in limited government, be it on social or fiscal issues. In fact, the new hot commodity, Huckabee, believes in that compassionate conservative nonsense even more strongly than Bush. If that’s the direction the party wishes to head in, fine, I just wish the elected officials under the Republican banner would be more honest and open about it.
30
AM
A semi-major candidate for the Republican nomination spouting the anti-American things that he says isnt important? I suppose we are just supposed to look the other way because he is in our party? Is that irrelevant, as you say? Cheap? I dont think so. Im not going to tolerate some nut saying that crap because he is good on some other issues. People utterly destroy people like McCain, Guiliani and Huckabee because they have weak positions on one issue or another. Paul should get the same treatment, but there is some stigma with him that I do not understand. I am so disgusted with people looking the other way about his statements and I want them to be accountable for them. There are plenty of Paul supporters reading this site, and I want them to be responsible for the dangerous things this man says. Do they believe 9/11 was our own fault? Should we let radical Islam take over the world and just fight them off at our border once they have consolidated power? How many of these “real republicans” believe this? But of course, in their “real republican” way they will not respond, but I guess we will see.
30
AM
Well, to begin with you missed my point. I have no problem with a candidate or his supporters being taken to task for their position(s). However, that is not what happened. The only thing said about Ron Paul prior to your comment was if not for the amount of money he raised, Sam would feel he should drop out of the race. Another commenter stated that they attended a rally for him in NYC. No remark was made as to the worthiness of Paul’s candidacy or any of his positions, but from there you felt the need to make your entrance with a wild exaggeration of Paul’s foreign policy position and insult a commenter. The hyperbolic drivel you spewed out is no different than when democrats say all Republicans are racist homophobes who hate the poor and want to make sure kids don’t have healthcare and senior citizens live on the streets. You wouldn’t tolerate such nonsense and unreasoned argumentation from them, why do you engage in it yourself? There is certainly a discussion to be had on the role of the Unite States in the world, on non-interventionism versus neo-conservatism. Quite simply, however, you failed to engage in it in a productive manner.
All of what you said, in some combination or another, may or may not (I do not want to speak for people other than myself) be applicable to some of Paul’s supporters. However, none of it is applicable to Ron Paul, nor is it applicable to me. Did he say that America’s interventionist foreign policy was in part responsible for 9/11? Absolutely he did and that is an assertion I don’t disagree with. That hardly makes him or me anti-American. To be anti-American one would have to be against the ideals and principles this country was founded on and you would be hard-pressed to find two individuals who more strongly believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the freedoms and liberties provided therein than the good congressman or me.
Further, I strongly disagree with any notion that, or person who, argues it is anti-American to admit fault in our current foreign policy or to assert that a more humble, less intrusive foreign policy may be a wiser course. And I feel quite confident in that assertion knowing that the congressman, the founders and many a traditional republican would stand behind me. You could argue, and many have, that the world is different now; advances in transportation have shrunk the world to the point where it is beyond naïve to believe that we can protect ourselves with our head in the sand. First, that is a gross mischaracterization of Ron Paul’s (and my own) definition of a non-interventionist foreign policy. Non-interventionism does not equal isolationism, they are not one in the same. Second, while I don’t agree that we can carry on with our head in the sand I also do not agree that we should (or have to right to) carry on with it in everyone else’s business either; especially when we so often do so under the pretense that either you do what we say or we will hit you with some sort of retribution be it an economic sanction or a military action. Surely a point must exist somewhere in the middle? I believe that one does and I believe heading towards it is the direction Paul (and myself) would like to see the country go.
30
PM
As usual, the problem with Paul supporters is their relationship to reality, which tends to be rocky. Did I exaggerate Paul’s foreign policy? Not according to his website or every single thing I have heard him say. Again, reality usually sucks. And Im not a fan of ‘kid-gloves’ politics, as this is the main reason Washington has spiraled out of control with power and waste. If a commenter is offended by me repeating his candidates words, he should find a new candidate.
While I appreciate the term “hyperbolic drivel”, im afraid the things I highlighted are mainly Paul’s own words. While this will certainly be given a pass because it comes from Paul himself, it remains true. Is there a difference between Dems calling us homophobic puppy haters? Yes, because Ive never said I hate gay puppies or anything related to that nor has any republican that I know of. But, Paul says the things I highlighted, and they are therefore fair game.
Paul’s position on 9/11 and foreign policy is totally unworkable in the world we live in. Him and his supporters can continue to pretend we are sitting in powdered wigs in 1785, or they can accept reality for what it is. Would pulling out of the middle east stop terrorism around the world and against our country? No. Will it prevent the spread of militant islam across the globe? No. Thus, Paul’s foreign policy directly endangers our homeland through negligence and delusion, and to me that is anti-American. Ill repeat that for Paul people: Deliberately putting our nation at heightened risk based on something Thomas Jefferson said 200+ years ago is anti-American.
Long live the American Empire.
30
PM
Rudy sucks!
He suck as a liberal
He suck as a conservative.
But, Huckabee did pretty well, and he was really relaxed.
And getting rid of the IRS!! I do not know how he is going to do it but I am listening!!
Paul was ok.
1
AM
The true conservative was Thompson do your homework check out his Issues Principles and White Pages at http://www.fred08.com unless your too LAZY