Tuesday, May 15, 2007
|
|
Winners, Losers, and Slapfights, Baby!
|
|
Posted by:
Mary Katharine Ham at
10:33 PM
|
|
Top-tier winner: Rudy The debate was heavy on foreign policy and security issues, and he spoke better on abortion tonight than in the last debate. Romney and McCain were fighting each other, and Rudy got an absolutely shining moment when he jumped on Ron Paul about saying that the 9/11 terrorists attacked us because of our presence in the Middle East. It's a soundbite, kids, and his campaign headquarters have got to be cheering. Applause from the audience was probably the biggest of the night. Rudy also invoked Fort Dix in his first answer, and invoked the Hillary specter and the liberal media within the first hour. Well done.
Second-tier winner: Huckabee
He deserves a couple polling points out of that Edwards comment alone. It strikes me that he's a very gifted speaker in exactly the way a politician should be-- he says very little very beautifully. It sounds like a burn, but I don't mean it that way. He hits the high points, sounds conservative enough, says all he needs to, and is engaging while he does it. He made an impact tonight, I thought, sounding appropriately sensitive on abortion and tough on terror. I thought he was a bit weak when he was defending some of his tax hikes by saying he was governing in a tough state for Republicans. Umm, Hucakbee, you governed in Arkansas. I think the guys who governed in Massachusetts and New York City have taken that argument.
Slapfights! This debate was far more entertaining than the last one, partly because the candidates quit with the "my dear colleague" nonsense and took some shots. I also think Wallace's, Hume's, and Goler's questions were mature and extremely tough compared to the MSNBC/Politico debate. The abortion questions posed to Romney and Brownback, in particular, stood out as very tough (Oh, and the one about having no minorities on stage was tough, though I kinda wish more than one candidate could have addressed it). And, all the front-runners were made to do some serious explaining of what exactly makes them conservative. The '24' scenario question was classic Fox. It's security-focused, entertaining, provocative, and almost outlandish. It's about as much fun as you can have with a question about security during a GOP primary debate, and will undoubtedly bring Fox some heat about fear-mongering from the Left. Frankly, I thought it spiced things up, and it allowed Tancredo to get off a Jack Bauer line, which, let's face it-- we were all waiting for it. McCain vs. Romney:
Romney: "McCain-Kennedy would do to immigration what McCain-Feingold did to campaign finance, and that's bad." MKH: Ooooh, burn! Audience: Loud applause... McCain: (Must..cover...anger...toward...Romney...and...audience.) Well, I think it was necessary to deal with the money problem that was causing corruption in the government...And, I have had a consistent position. I have not changed my position in even-numbered years. Audience: Hesitant applause...
Gonna have to give the win to Romney on that one. Though, I do give McCain the crown over Romney when it came to being genuine and genuinely funny at times.
Rudy vs. Ron:
Ron: 9/11 attackers attacked us because we were bombing Iraq for 10 years, and all up in the Middle East's biznass. (paraphrased). MKH: Say wha? Rudy: Oh, no he di-in't! Take it back, punk! (paraphrased) Ron: No, really, we brought it on ourselves because we were all up in the Mesopotamian Kool-Aid, and didn't even know the flava. It's an A-B conflict, and we should C our way out. (paraphrased) Rest of the candidates: Hey, hey, we wanna slap Ron around, too! (paraphrased)
Wendell: Settle down. Rudy grabbed his soundbite. Go get your own. (paraphrased)
Rudy wins!
The rest of the Big Three: McCain lost the overcaffeinated finger-stabbing, seemed more relaxed, but punched back when necessary. Competent performance with one good line: "As a former drunken sailor, I take offense..." I noticed that several other candidates, on several occasions referred back to things McCain said with, "Sen. McCain is right..." I thought he maneuvered well on the S.C. Confederate flag question. It's tricky. He admitted wrongdoing, took a stand, and managed to get applause out of a crowd that's sensitive about the charged issue.
Romney was competent, but not memorable. His suit-so-blue-it's-black line about how blue Massachusetts is fell a little flat on my official candidate funny-meter. As I said, I think he came out on top of the McCain slapfight, but I think McCain outdid him overall. He didn't speak nearly as much as last debate, which for the guy in the Big Three with the least name recognition, should be key for him. I did like his answer to the question: "Can you cite an example of a policy on which you've changed your mind to a position that's less popular with the Republican debate." He says he was once for abolishing the Dept. of Education, but changed his mind and went pro-NCLB when he saw that federal money and testing can make an impact. Now, as a small-government conservative, it gave me warm fuzzies that he was ever pro-Education Dept. abolishment, but I recognize that that's not the most practical of positions, so it doesn't hurt him a lot with me to have abandoned it. I'm anti-NCLB, but he got right to talking about the children, so he softened the pro-NCLB blow. Great quote: "“The civil rights issue of our time is not what’s going on on this stage, but what’s going on in the schools, in the inner-city where kids are not getting the education they need." He actually answered the question with an appropriate example instead of dodging, and managed not to hurt himself too bad with any major constituency, I'd imagine.He still comes off a little cardboard for me. Guiliani gives me genuine passion. McCain gives me both genuine indignation and good humor. I don't feel anything from Romney.
Memorable lines:
McCain on federal spending: "As a former drunken sailor, I'm offended..." Huckabee on spending: "Instead, we’ve had a congress that spent money like John Edwards at a beauty shop." McCain on Congress' approval rating: "At that point, you're down to paid staff and blood relatives, I think." Tancredo on flip-flops: "I trust those conversions when they happen on the road to Damascus, not on the road to Des Moines." Giuliani on immigration: "First, I wanna thank Congressman Tancredo for calling me "soft" on anything. I think that's the first time in 20 years...may be good for my reputation." Tancredo on '24' scenario: "Four nuclear weapons have gone off on American soil and we're worried about whether waterboarding is appropriate? I'm lookin' for Jack Bauer at that time."
|
|
"Whether their dream of a Global Caliphate is plausible or achievable is beside the point. The point is that 'they' believe it is ...and are willing to die and take as many 'infidels' with them as they can ....just to prove their point!"
Well if they were ever to establish this Caliphate they need recruits again, intervention is the primary justification for recruitment. Infidels on Arab land, not infidels existing. Imperial wars on foreign lands usually end up in political quagmires, especially ones with completely different societies, recruiting always takes a hit once the conflict leaves home. Also with Imperial wars, the public becomes desensitized to the harsh realities of war, of conflict, of hostile regime change since these scenes are going far away from the "Homeland".
In all cases of war the enemy is often caricatured as some kind of animal. That is propaganda and it happens on both sides and unfortunately many well meaning citizens take the bait. Emotion takes precedent over fact, the ability to objectively assess the situation becomes almost impossible, and positions once considered absurd become attractive through suggestion, many time involving half truths and slogans. Leaders on both sides use this tactic and exploit the vulnerabilities of the public, they do not believe these slogans. Perpetual Revolution is not an attractive option to sober people, just ideologues and their sheep.
The Caliphate is a utopian goal and recruiting jihadists is the means. Now how do we cut off the means? You can attempt to broaden the conflict and engulf the whole region with the utopian idea of "democracy spreading" or you can isolate them, cut off their recruiting, and defeat them. That cannot be accomplished through "democracy spreading". The punishment for supporting Al Qaeda should be clear. This is not so, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are bigger supporters than Iran or Iraq ever were, yet Iraq has been toppled and Iran is next. Al Qaeda should be made an example, not given a respite. It should be isolated, not unified with the rest of the Muslim world. Like I said, once we attack Iran we unite the Islamic World, the opportunity of exploiting Sunni-Shiite differences disappears and the difference between moderate and extremists blurs slightly more. Also big players like Russia and China, who once again holds much of our debt, get involved and there arises an economic front that will open up against us. Now does it make sense to do that? How is perpetual war the answer? How is it possible? Either they are following Machiavelli's example and lying about their intentions or these ideologues actually believe their own nonsense, but I believe the answer is somewhere in between.
There is a reason that even traditional globalists are up in arms is because these guys in Bush's administration are playing russian roulette with our treasury, our security, and our well being as a superpower. This is dangerous and the American People have been greatly let down by the media, both MSM and the Talk Radio right. Our extremely corrupt politicians are going off the deep end, when we open up the final front against Iran and take on the Shiites, our open borders will prove useful to them. Going into Iran opens up a geopolitical can of worms that we can't comprehend. We still have time to wake up before its too late, but we are running out of chances and a status quo vote in 08 will most definitely cross the rubicon. There really is not much parity in any of the "viable" candidates. That should cause concern.
If this seems all over the place to some that is because policy and its consequences do not happen in a vacuum. I know people like things broken down to simple concepts, which makes them more susceptible to manipulation, and talking points but things like foreign policy are much more complex. |
|
I'd rather keep company with the 'Paul bashers' than the 'bash America first-ers' like Paul and his like-minded supporters emntioned above by 'September12Republican'!
"But I'll tell you who does agree: the fine folks at moveon.org, at DemocraticUnderground and at the DailyKos, all of whom were organized to pack these unofficial polls in favor of Dr. Paul. That doesn't necessarily mean that I'm right and you're wrong. But it's a strange crowd to hang with."
September12Republican...hope you don't mind the cut and paste from your post but I thought your great point was worth repeating! |
|
On your posted question of 9:37 PM:
"Can somebody please tell me...
How this Global Caliphate is going to happen? Nobody who has ever advocated that position has given me a plausible strategy of how this will come about."
Whether their dream of a Glodal Caliphate is plausible or achievable is beside the point. The point is that 'they' believe it is ...and are willing to die and take as many 'infidels' with them as they can ....just to prove their point! |
|
...Sorry for hijacking your editorial post with so much emphasis on that Losertarian Ron Paul! I did thoroughly enjoy reading it and several of your observations/re-caps/paraphrases were highly amusing!
However, I strongly disagree with your giving McCain a pass. I think the added reason he gave for being against 'torture' (ie. water-boarding, sleep deprivation, cold showers, etc. and other forms of frat-house 'torture') irritated me more than his belief that it doesn't give you accurate information (a theory that has been proven false).
The added reason he gave was that we will lose more than we gain 'in world opinion'. When I heard him give that reason, my head nearly exploded! My first thoughts were, who gives a rats a$$ what the 'worlds' opinion are of us. Remember...his response was to a question with a specific scenario given by Britt Hume of an impending catastrophic terrorist attack.
That answer said a lot about John McCain, IMO. For one, it said he cares more about world opinion than he does about the safety and well-being of the American people, just like he cares more about the praise and adulation of the MSM than he does the well-being of his political party and the American people as demonstrated with his McCain/Feingold bill...and his upcoming McCain/Kennedy immigration bill.
It also 'said' that he doesn't have the slightest capacity to waver from a wrongheaded position or opinion...or admit that he might be wrong, once he has stated it and been praised patted on the back for it by that same MSM. After all ...he gets a special status on the subject due to his Vietnam POW status. I doubt that other Vietnam POWs would be given that same status if they were to take an opposing view to Mr. McCain! The MSM would certainly object since it would not be in keeping with their condemnation of the treatment of Git-mo detainees and their general distrust of the US military. Too bad other militarises (from other countries) with far worse records never seem to upset them very much.
I know it was used as a parody before but McCain really does often remind me of Humphrey Bogart in 'The Caine Mutiny' ....insisting that someone had to of stolen those 'strawberries'! I don't trust his judgement!
I think pointguard's post of 9:32 AM was the most accurate analysis of who won the debate!
FUN FRED RUN! ! ! |
|
Sep12liberalRepub
Check out his poll and tell me who won.
davy, I checked the poll and winner turned out to be ... MSNBC -- for getting me to once again visit one of their sites after I swore I'd never do so again.
Look, Davy, I honestly do admire Dr. Paul. I am not aware of a more principled politician anywhere. America truly would do well under a President Paul, but it's not going to happen.
And it's not going to happen for the right reason. Our nation in the 21st century is being challenged globally on virtually every front: economically, militarily, diplomatically and socially. It may be that Dr. Paul's prescription makes the most sense -- that we shrink like turtles back into our shell and deal with the world only when we are compelled to react.
I don't agree. Nor, apparently, do most of the other posters on this site. Nor most of the audience members in attendance at last night's debate.
But I'll tell you who does agree: the fine folks at moveon.org, at DemocraticUnderground and at the DailyKos, all of whom were organized to pack these unofficial polls in favor of Dr. Paul. That doesn't necessarily mean that I'm right and you're wrong. But it's a strange crowd to hang with. |
|
How this Global Caliphate is going to happen? Nobody who has ever advocated that position has given me a plausible strategy of how this will come about.
Now the AEI that posesses much influence over our current foreign policy are students of Machiavelli. They have written about him with great admiration. They handed this book out to members of Congress. Machiavelli according to Michael Ledeen, in his book Machiavelli on Modern Leadership, proscribed a leader that is at war, a leader that may have to enter into evil to accomplish one's means. One that uses religion to persuade troops to give their life for the state. This is the AEI's model leader.
Now you don't have to be Machiavelli, you don't have to be Von Clausewitz, you don't have to be Sun Tzu to tell you that a ragtag group of terrorists that have to run their organization from exile, CANNOT successfully take one state, let alone the WORLD. The second they take one state they become exposed. A head of state cannot foment revolution and then rule from exile. Lenin achieved the converse but ruling from exile is untenable. So please tell me how this global caliphate story is not just some fairy tale to scare Christians. |
|
If your male, I sure hope you don't need a OBGYN.
Anyway you asked what kind of doctor he was.
I guess you weren't sincere but instead being a Paul basher.
Although Paul won't put you in Guantanmo for bashing him with your Paul "hate" speech.
However Rudy may torture you and send you to Gitmo. Although he may forgive you if you play drag queen with him. |
|
Thanks but no thanks! If I ever decide I have a need for an OBGYN for any reason whatsoever, I'll check out my yellow pages first.
|
|
|
|
I partially agree with your post of 6:54 PM
"Why They Fight
As Huckabee pointed out last night, the radical Islamists fight the West because they want to establish a religious pan-Arab government in the Middle East. We just happen to be in their way."
I only disagree with that statement in the degree of their ambitions! They will not merely be satisfied with a caliph rule in the Middle East alone. They are much more ambitious than that. Nothing short of world domination and strict adherence to their fanatical and hate-filled beliefs will satisfy their
lusts for power.
They constantly use the name of Allah but their true god (purposefully with a small 'g') is Muhammad. His fanatical hate-filled vengeful teachings with promises of 'glory' in heaven for their cowardly and murderous suicidal actions are their true 'bible'.
Until we all wake up and realize that Islam is not 'a peaceful religion', we will continue to be victimized by their strictest adherents! |
|
|
|
First:
To booboolane writes: Wednesday, May, 16, 2007 12:30 PM
"Paul has also been the only one to admit we went to Iraq 'for the oil'."
Care to ellithen us on just how much oil we took from Iraq after we deposed it's tyranical leader, Saddam!?
Second:
To George W Bush writes: Wednesday, May, 16, 2007 11:37 AM
"So you are willing to let the Executive make anyone they want disappear? What the hell was the point of 1776? We have come full circle."
And just 'how many' people exactly have disappeared so far due to the Patriot's Act!? I've lost count?
Third:
To all Ron Paul apostles everywhere!
On numerous occasions, I've noticed that several of you Ron Paul apostles have referred to Ron Paul as Dr. Paul. Care to elaborate on just what kind of DR. mister Paul is? Is he a medical Dr.? ...does he have a Dr's degree in some other educational field from a college?...or is he more of a Dr. Zeus kind of DR.? My impressions of him were that he's more like the latter choice, although he does kinda sound like a pointy-headed liberal college professor at times!
|
|
I agree w/you. These panty wasted newsreporters just don't know how to act in the presence of a true warrior. They're afraid of Duncan Hunter. Hunter got - what? 3 questions? Maybe 4? It has to be frustrating for him. And these were the same questions, in essence, that he got from C. Matthews!
I was really disappointed w/Fox. But not surprised.
Hunter will get his chance. They can't block him forever. DD |
|
|
As Huckabee pointed out last night, the radical Islamists fight the West because they want to establish a religious pan-Arab government in the Middle East. We just happen to be in their way. |
|
"And no, Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Oklahoma City is not irrelevant."
When did I say, or even hint, that I felt that it was?
You know, I have yet to meet a F'n Paleo-con that wasn't perpetually irate, hypersensitive to criticism and generally acted like they suffered from a Napoleon complex. Jeez, what is it with you folks? |
|
I need to amend my first commment: AR is fourth in line with Democrat controlled legislature. I left out CT.
|
|
Just an observation- You seem to be having trouble focusing on a single subject. Anywhoo, let me take the collection point-by-point...
"Well domestic terrorism would be similar, do you mean acts of terror from American citizens or foreign nationals?"
Either/both; anyone on US soil planning a terrorist attack.
"I don't think the immigration policies of the "viable" candidates make us safer."
I'm for the wall and strict, well-armed border enforcement myself. As well as denial of all social benefit programs and public schools to those who're already here. Oh, and for God's sake repeal the foolish anchor-baby law.
"I think you have to make the federal beuracracies more effiecient, we had all the Pre 9/11 info we needed but they were too incompetent to put it together."
Easier said than done, but I agree. If you can't get rid of them, make them function properly.
"More HUMINT abroad would be helpful."
Huh?
"Just the heightened priority placed on terrorism makes us safer."
Agreed.
"We would still conduct surveillance, but there is no reason we can't have warrants for surveillance of American's phone calls, the constitution and federal statute require warrants and to not do so is illegal."
No problems.
"The Administration still to this day has given no reason why a warrant hinders surveillance or why they cannot meet this requirement."
I haven't heard any explanation either. Have they failed to do so since that story initially broke?
"Most of you guys are victims of your own talking points, you operate with half of the facts and when the other half is brought up you bury your head in the sand."
Smug, petty insults? How droll.
"Interventionism brings about terrorism, why they attacked us is well known, our intelligence agencies concur with Dr Paul's diagnosis."
There are a litany of reasons, most of which probably do spring from our foriegn policy decisions over the past five or so decades. But that does not justify allowing our enemies to dictate terms to us?
As for the remainder: I was and still am outraged by the Clinton Administration's actions in both of those cases. However, this is wholely different situation. |
|
"Besides, the GOP in it's current state is a government juggernaut. Their record on spending is awful and some are guilty of the worst pork barrel spending"
Ain't that the sad truth? There are way too many RINOs in office these days. That's one of the reasons I'm supporting Hunter; he's a rather staunch fiscal conservative. |
|
We weren't discussing foriegn policy. My question was regarding a domestic policy issue that YOU brought up.
Still, it was a rather humorous deflection attempt. |
|
"So you are willing to let the Executive make anyone they want disappear? What the hell was the point of 1776? We have come full circle."
Agreed...while I am quite disappointed with the selections for the GOP (I do like Paul), I can't go with Rudy, he's to anti-Second Amendment for me.
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NzUwMzQ1MTI5ZmNmNjQ5NzIzNWIxZGZmMjhlYThkMGE=
That's important to me. Someone willing to ignore an actual Amendment of the Constitution will more than likely take more freedoms from us.
Besides, the GOP in it's current state is a government juggernaut. Their record on spending is awful and some are guilty of the worst pork barrel spending. |
|
I know that it's difficult, you being a liberal and all, but please don't be disingenuous and deliberately obtuse.
How, pray tell, do YOU suggest we combat domestic terrorism? What alternatives are there? I'm willing to listen. |
|
So, for you, it's fingers in ears, eyes shut tight and singing nursery rhymes to yourself.
You want facts? How about the fact that this nation is a republic, which is run on democratic principles. How about the fact that the electorate wants a candidate who is serious about the threat posed by Islamofacism? How about the fact that Ron Paul, brilliant as he may be, cannot articulate a winning position (not just for the MSM but also for most of the posters on this site, who are predisposed to his libertarian principles).
No, I don't want Hillary. I want a candidate that can beat her. That is not Ron Paul. |
|
"..anyone, citizens included, could be designated an "alien combatant" and be held indefinitely without a right to Habeus Corpus."
*sigh* Look, friend, I've always been a staunch proponent of smaller, less intrusive government. That's just my nature. But when it comes to terrorism, especially of the domestic variety, I'm in favor of taking extraordinary countermeasures. Do I like the idea of giving more power to the government? No. However, the sad reality we are faced with demands these policies; they're an absolute necessity. I honestly don't see any way around it. |
|
I posted these comments on another thread, but they fit here as well. It is heartbreaking to watch the very sensible libertarian principles become marginalized by some of its most devoted adherents.
Sane America is not drinking your Koolaid when it comes to Ron Paul.
So is it so hard for you to let go of fallen hero? I know that it strikes you as unfair, but Ron Paul is simply not a credible candidate for president in 2008.
I did hear some very constructive, libertarian-leaning points from others on the stage last night (from Gov. Huckabee, just for one example). Is it possible for you to support the next best candidate that actually has a chance of winning? My guess is no -- you are too invested in Rep. Paul. More's the pity. |
|
Although FOX did a much better job than MSNBC, I was very disappointed with their time/questions allocations. They're obviously giving more face time to the "big three", but it was obvious to me that Huckabee and Hunter were two (out of four) that I could believe and that were real conservatives who don't apoligize for their beliefs.
Rudy is a Centrist, McCain is a politician and Romney is a business man. Non of the three has the overall ideology to lead the country in my opinion.
I would like to see Huckabee and Hunter debating Hillary and Obama and would support either of them for President.
|
|
"his support for the removal of Habeus Corpus"
Please elaborate.
"I can't support Hunter"
*GASP* I'm soooo shocked. |
|
The poll that shows McCain leading SC is from a McCain pollster. I would be careful about it's inferences of McCain leading SC.
It is a good move by the McCain people. |
|
The Romney McCain exchange, the Rudy 9/11 comeback are dominating the new cycle. Who actually won the debate is not as important as the news cycle that follows it. The audience for the news cycle is much larger.
McCain has handed Romney an opportunity to help himself on the flipflop issue. He needs to keep that discussion going. McCain has flipflopped, or should I say evolved or changed on a number of major issues. The exchange will not hurt McCain but it will help Romney. Romney does very well in a head to head comparison with McCain. Romney looks Presidential and his positions are better.
It is far better for Romney to have that exchange with McCain than to wait for some unknown to score big points off of reinforcing the flipflop issue. Romney needs to make the case that other front runners have made just as many or more changes than he has. Going head to head with McCain will work as McCain is a natural foil. He has made a lot of changes and tends to be thin skinned.
As for Thompson, his brillant rebuttal to the nutroot is lost in the clutter of the news cycle. It got some play in cyber space but the MSM are talking about the debate. |
|
Amen brother. Your 10:19 AM post is spot on.
Hunter `08. |
|
Hunter the man. He has walked the walk.
Ignore the debates. Forget who impressed you the most. Forget who came up with the smoothest responses. Forget who looks the most presidential. The best speakers are usually good salesmen, but rarely deliver the goods. They are called lawyers. Consistency in a person's record is what counts. |
|
Truthfully, I liked Huckabee the best because he supports the FairTax, and Mitt always sounds cool and professional, but the real winner was Fred Thompson.
He KNOWS that none of the candidates could match him in a debate...and he also knows that none of the candidates pulled away. When he joins, all of the momentum of the party will shift to him since right now NOBODY has momentum.
|
|
|
Romney did well, but Rudy landed the line that became the image of the debate. |
|
While it is true that Arkansas' legislature is overwhelmingly Democrat, that is a bit of a stretch. Many of the Democrats are traditional Southern Democrats, They are actually quite onservative and Democrats because of the lonstanding tradition that only Yankee carpetbaggers are Republicans. In the last two presidential elections, the state went to President Bush. However, five of the six congrssional delegates are Democrats and all of the elected state-wide positions are Democrats.
While the numbers give one impression, the truth is that Arkansas is nowhere near as liberal as NY or MA.
The one biggest advantage that Huckabee has is his wife Janet. She is one of the coolest people you will ever meet. While she was our First Lady, she did all kinds of fun things like sky diving. She has a great sense of humor. She certainly doesn't fit in the traditional mold of the wife of a President, but that's a good thing. |
|
I think that Rep. Paul's loopy notions on security are exacerbated by his poor oral communications skills. If last night's debate had been a written exam, Rep. Paul probably would have stated a much more coherent position on the Dept. of Homeland Security.
MKH aptly describes Gov. Huckabee as "a very gifted speaker in exactly the way a politician should be-- he says very little very beautifully.... He hits the high points, sounds conservative enough, says all he needs to, and is engaging while he does it."
Rep. Paul lacks that gift, and the 60-second answer format last night did him in when it came to expressing his views on how to address our bloated federal bureaucracy.
Still, all in all, he's toast. Nevertheless, be prepared for a whole bunch of backing and filling today (and for the next several weeks) by Liberty and his cadre of like-minded posters. |
|
What Ron Paul said is the growth of agency has created more bureaucracy and are less efficiency. He gave the Educational department and Homeland security as an example.
The facts are since we have grown the federal and State government schools performance is down, less money as a % is in the classroom and administrative cost is up!
Also if you like at Katrina, immigration, ports and waste any rational person would have to give Homeland Security a low grade.
This is why I no longer can support most Republicans, because I was a Barry Goldwater fan who believed less government was better not more government like the new GOP!
Read about Barry Goldwater and tell me why NEOCONS are conservative?
http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/the-father-of-the-conservative-movement
|
|
Ron Paul & Mitt Romney win debate?
Ron Paul was ignored by FOX and put down while FOW viewers almost voted him the winner! Congressman Paul pointed out that our policy in the Middle East is part of the problem regarding terrorism. This was part of a study as well as CIA analysis of the Middle East yet he was ridiculed by most the candidates.
NPR-“Since our invasion, suicide terrorism has been essentially doubling in Iraq every year that we’ve had more or less 150,000 American combat soldiers stationed there.”Robert Pape, director of the Chicago Project on Suicide Terrorism
AC-Full interview with Robert Pape
http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/ron-paul-mitt-romney-win-debate
Do you think Ron Paul is right the GOP base is shrinking due to the war policy?
FOX News -asked you to tell us who you thought won Tuesday night’s First-in-the-South Republican Presidential Candidates Primary Debate. With more than 40,000 votes submitted via text message, 29 percent said former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney made the best showing of all 10 GOP presidential hopefuls who made their cases to the American people at the University of South Carolina’s Koger Center for the Arts in Columbia, S.C.
• Did You Miss the Live Broadcast? Click Here to Watch the Entire Debate on FOXNews.com.
Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who ignited controversy at the debate with remarks that U.S. policy had invited the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, came in second with 25 percent. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who strongly admonished Paul for his comments, came in third place with 19 percent. Arizona Sen. John McCain, who is the frontrunner in South Carolina polls, came in sixth with 5 percent.
READ MORE
http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/ron-paul-mitt-romney-win-debate
|
|
|
Thanks for the humorous recap, MKH. I had to miss the debate, but I enjoyed your review. |
|
"Ron Paul won the debate hands down"
Yeah, I drank a beer last night. But not enough to lose complete touch with reality. Ron Paul is toast.
But fear not, Davy, Rep. Paul's recognition of that fact is almost certainly nil. I predict that you'll be able to keep rooting for him right up until the Republican convention. |
|
Rudy wants to revise history, and retract Ron Paul from stating history.
Yep Rudy is a hard core liberal.
Rudy is also a flip-flopper on Real ID act again.
|
|
|
In defense of Huckabee, AR is the third most democratic state behind MA and HI |
|
|
I actually was impressed with Hunter at times. I caught my self thinking he would make an excellent Senator from CA. Too bad CA is such a left wing morass. |
|
|
The Vegas odds have Rudy up 5, McCain down 2 and Romney up a little. Not much movement for the other candidates. |
|
Conservatives can nominate a conservative. All it takes is not acting like sheep and getting herded into nominating a northeast liberal. 49% will never vote for Hillary, only 60% voted last time. Turnout was the difference. Give Americans a chance to vote for somone who will secure the border and watch turnout soar. Americans want their government to fulfill its most basic responsibility.
The primary responsibility of the U.S. government is to protect the territorial integrity and people of this country. They have completely abdicated this responsibility. Both parties have been complicit in this. We are being told it is not possible to control our borders, enforce our laws, and thereby control our destiny as a nation. Hogwash. We are being sold out by corporations intent on importing workers for jobs that can't be exported with the taxpayers paying the true costs, financial and human. If we act like sheep and don't stop the inundation across our borders, we will lose our country without a bleat.
http://www.gohunter08.com
|
|
the best. Tom Tancredo might not have a snowball's chance in he**, but that line stole the show.
Rudy's righteous indignation at Ron Paul's ridiculous notion that the USA INVITED the 9/11 attacks was wonderful also, but I have strong reservations against him (Rudy -- Abortion, gun rights).
I thought Ron Paul was marginal before...now I think he's a LOON!
Mitt Romney, so far, is still my guy. He's shown leadership ability on 3 fronts: In business, taking a fledgling Bain Capitol to a towering success, then rescuing the Salt Lake Olympics, and then taking a Mass. budget deficit and turning it into a surplus -- all the while fighting the Mass. Supreme court over their allowance of same sex marriage without a vote from the people. If Fred Thompson gets in the race, I hope these 2 will duke it out for the nomination by January of 2008. It should be interesting. |
|
The primary topics (security was the main focus) of the debate favored Rudy and he did much better than in the first debate. However, he is out of step with social conservatives.
Romney looked Presidential, may have helped himself on the flipflop issue and did not hurt himself in any way. He got some tough questions, but so did Rudy and McCain.
Except for Iraq, McCain seems out of step with the main stream of the party. He has excellent political skills but his positions don't resonate with the core of the party.
Huckabee came across as a real person and had some good lines. He did much better.
Brownback was better, especially in his facial expressions. He was better prepared and more relaxed.
Hunter did well, especially on military/security.
Tancredo looked less one dimensional and came across well. Gilmore did well at times and so did T Thompson.
I have a hard time believing Ron Paul is actually a Republican Congressman from TX. I hope we do not lose that seat. Beaumont is a lot more Republican than Paul. |
|
|
if Ron Paul wins the nomination, who do you support? Just kidding. |
|
...on the debate.
In order of showing, in my opinion by MY scoring system which will remain to be MINE and NOT shared.
Hunter
Huckabee
Gilmore
Giuliani/Romney tied (because they hem and haw but Rudy WAS indeed strong on terror and HAMMERED that twit ron paul)
Tancredo did good but did not "show"
T. Thompson...was he in the room?
McCain...sorry...wimpy
ron paul...qualifies for the no caps pledge...needs to go home, resign, dig a hole and climb in and is to be forgotten and NEVER again taken seriously. |
|
|
|