Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Login | What's Hot
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Hugh Hewitt :: Townhall.com Columnist
Romney Wins. Big.
by Hugh Hewitt
Forward Print Share Single Page
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


Mitt Romney won the last night's debate because he emerged as a plausible, indeed compelling match-up to Hillary.

Rudy hit him hard --and below the belt, with the "sanctuary mansion" shot. But so what? We aren't expecting the Clinton's to play nice. Our candidate will have to be able to be "strong" without being "mean," superior on the issues and intellect and ahead on the key test of "Who shares my values?" That's Romney, and I expect the Clintons know it and will work overtime to take him off the board in the next six weeks.

What did Romney do when Rudy swung low?

Romney counter-punched. Hard. And for as long as it took. That exchange was the key to this debate. It is why Romney won. Hands down. Going away.

Romney did the same thing when Huck went all "up from poverty" as a counter to Romney's criticism in the "in-state tuition for illegal aliens" exchange.

Many GOPers who are leaning Romney in their minds wanted some show of knuckles and they got it. "Could Romney go one-on-one with Clinton, Inc?" they wondered.

"Is Romney tough enough, or too nice for the show?" Tonight the skeptics got their answer: Romney will take on Hillary in the fall debates and beat her. Handily.

Said Katherine Jean Lopez at NationalReview.com in the most telling of all live-blog comments:

So Far [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

this is Romney's best debate performance yet. He reminds us he has experience and outside of Washington, he's tackled difficult issues, and does not let his temper get the best of him with a New York bully (something that will come in handy).

K-Lo is right. The GOP race is all about beating Hillary in the debates of October. Rudy swung hard and didn't phase Mitt. Huckabee played the victim card and Mitt refused to let him do so. Mitt wins both rounds. And the debate.

And, I think, the nomination.

Other post-debate observations:

Some important center-right pundits can't find their way to saying a definitively good thing about Romney. Are they anti-Mormon or just concerned that the Mormon handicap is too great?

Some folks refuse to recognize the blindingly obvious: A vote for Huck is a vote for Rudy, so don't pull for Huck and tell me you can't support Rudy in the general.

Ron Paul got a raw deal from CNN. I don't care for his isolationism or for some of his supporters, but MSM bias is on parade when Ron Paul doesn't get to say hello for 35 minutes and then gets a video question on conspiracy theorists.

If CNN had sent a memo around with a heading "How Do We Make All The Republicans Look Bad?" they couldn't have telegraphed the corporate motive in this debate with any more transparency. What a revealing moment about the "Most Busted Name In News." Imagine a CNN debate in late 1944 --without a question about the war in the first hour. I am surprised Anderson Cooper didn't throw a flag on his own network. Cooper's skills are such that he could be a serious name in journalism, but not if he continues to stand by and let network producers involve him in train wrecks like this one.

To the YouTube kid sent to flak the debate on Tuesday: The voice of the people throws up Grover Norquist? I know Grover. He's not the people. He's a Beltway demigod. And the people want a guitar solo to open their debate?

The circus is leaving town. And not a moment too soon.

Absentee voting starts in New Hampshire on December 10. The Union will be more secure if the Granite State's voters skipped this carnival.
Share:
Forward Print Single Page
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Hugh Hewitt is host of a nationally syndicated radio talk show. Hugh Hewitt's new book is The War On The West.

Be the first to read Hugh Hewitt's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Join The Debate!

Post Your Comment
(207 comments so Far)
View in ascending order     View in descending order
Reply # 1
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 7:25 AM EST
Watched only about half an hour
I cannot imagine sitting through the whole very cheap reality show disguised as a Debate. If those were the best YouTube people they could scrape up, God protect us from the ones they rejected.

No wonder the Europeans think Americans are all knuckle dragging idiots.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 2
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 7:41 AM EST
CNN -- Slimey as Always
As reported, one of the Youtube questions was a plant from the thong of Herself. A retired General was the source of one question -- a male, female, or in between who is working on a Hitlery committee. The "debate" was pretty typical but Romney won? I didn't see many winners but did see several losers. Guiliani and Romney got most of the air time and Trancredo, Paul, etc. were silented by the CNN group. Granting 30 seconds for a response is not nearly as long as several minutes to make a speech, is it? One thing was clear though, it was better with the 360 whats-his-name than with extreme leftist/rude Chris Matthews. How about Glenn Beck to run the next CNN thing?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 3
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 8:04 AM EST
CNN a disgrace
That debate was the most amateurish, ridiculous, distracting, embarrassing (add adjective here) monstrosity I have ever seen. From the idiotic song at the start, to the lines across the screen that hid the candidates eyes, to the cutaways to local car dealership commercials in the middle of several answers, to the old bag who was part of their "24 studio audience" who announced at the beginning and at the end that the republican candidates had nothing to offer, the whole debacle just served to make the Republicans look like feathers in the wind, incapable of controlling their own destiny. CNN should be ashamed.

That said, I think I liked Romney the best as someone with the cajones to beat Hillary in a debate. Giuliani looked too easily ruffled,which is exactly how he would look against her. Still, no candidate had the smarts to tell the American people that the 12 million figure that Amnestites have been tossing around is a complete hoax.

Also, I applaud Romney for his "I made a mistake" speech. It is about time someone pointed out that views can change once a candidate has had the opportunity to view the long range implications of a problem: say AMNESTY for 100 million Mexicans, for example.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 4
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 8:07 AM EST
One other thing
I don't believe any candidate talked about the laws in the US that serve to attract illegal immigration, such as the free anchor babies and free healthcare. Those need to be changed.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 5
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 8:11 AM EST
Another Plant
C'mon, Hugh...

Your shilling for Mitt is growing painful. Are you sure you're not a "Romney Plant" at TownHall?

Answer this question, Hugh: If Mitt wins the presidency, will you unalterably deny that you will accept any role in his administration?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 6
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 8:12 AM EST
After the Debate
An hour after the debate ended CNN ran a one-hour special on the anatomy and physiology of political dirty tricks, a very interesting program titled "Broken Government" in case it runs again and you want to see it. Worth watching. Lots of tricks were exposed, for example "showing a candidate in slow motion makes him/her look sinister" and taking the shot from color to black and white makes him/her look less favorable. Shooting from below level makes him or her look heroic (often used with Bush ever since 2000). "You can make a poll say anything": given "50% of Democrats believe that Hillary Clinton best represents core Democratic values" what you say instead is "Only half of all Democrats surveyed believe that H Clinton represents etc". Much more. Both sides use consultants who specialize in this kind of focused misrepresentation. I was surprised they didn't go into push-polling but I guess in an hour they couldn't get to everything.

One important thing to come out of this program is, in the words of some movie hood they showed in a brief spot, "If he comes at you with a knife, you go at him with a gun". Major mistakes have been made by attacked candidates being too polite, pretending not to notice, assuming that voters will see through the dirty tricks, or just waiting too long to respond (examples: Dukakis and Kerry). I wish our high schools taught a compulsory course in propaganda analysis.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 7
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 8:13 AM EST
Giuliani is an Idiot
...And Romney took him to task for it. Well Done Mitt!!!!

Sanctuary Mansion??????? Rudy - the GOP nod is yours to lose, and you are pulling through for the other candidates. Applause!!!!


I loved it when Rudy got BOO'D by the audience. LOVED IT!!!!
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 8
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 8:14 AM EST
Romney won?
I'm not sure which debate Hugh watched, but Romney looked terrible last night. From his mangled stance on immigration to a mumbled, fumbled answer on whether he believed the Bible, Mitt Romney won only one thing: Candidate Most Uncomfortable with the Hard Questions.

The facts are inescapable. Romney is just another professional northeastern politician running for president.

Hugh, haven't we had enough of those?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 9
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 8:15 AM EST
Hugh? Did you
watch the same debate I did? There is no way, based on Mitt's performance could he be considered a winner. Mitt came across as a liar, double talker and just plain old stupid. Rudy came across as shifty, crafty and also a liar and most especially on the topic of illegals. John M came across as combative and abrasive. Fred came across as a flatline and this debate diddn't do him any good nor did it do him any harm, except maybe his final answer on the flag question. Same for Tancredo. Paul did not do well at all and never got his message out.

Tancredo was the winner. No spin here.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 10
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 8:19 AM EST
No. Romney lost BIG
Hugh,
I thought you were smart. Why are you and Bennett shills for Romney? Romney was shakey in many of his responses. He seemed to be nervous to me. His attack against Huckabee on the issue of scholarships for children of illegals made him look heartless.

And, I was very surprised with his responses and history of supporting the gay agenda. I had no idea Mormons supported the gay lifestyle. He really danced to try to get around that issue. Very revealing! I thought he'd use that issue against Rudy. Now, I understand why he hasn't.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 11
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 8:22 AM EST
Nick in Austin
Hola, Nick, buen dia. I thought everybody in Texas was fluent in Spanish. You should know that the word you meant to use is spelled "cojones". "Cajones" are coffins.

"Flip-flop", however, is always spelled the same way. A major ad during the 2004 debate showed Kerry saying "I voted before it before I voted against it" and everybody would laugh uproariously. So when Romney says, "I supported abortion before I stopped supporting it" why should we suddenly be moved by his great sincerity? The man is slick. Republican or Democrat, Romney scares me because he is so expertly slick. I once worked for a guy like that, who would screw every employee in the place and never stop smiling beautifully the whole time. Beware of the slick smiler who, as Shakespeare said, "Would smile and smile and smile and be a villain".
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 12
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 8:32 AM EST
Watching the Debate
I watched the debate with my daughters, 15, and 19. They thought the format was "stupid" and beneath the standard of what presidential debates should be. They both think Romney is the most credible candidate. To them Fred and McCain looked way too old to be pres., even though Romney is around their same ages.

I agree that Romney showed he is tough and competitive last night. You don't get to where he is in life without being tough as nails in crunch time. He did seem to fumble a couple of answers - not is substance, but delivery. Didn't bother me too much because he is by far the best choice among the top three. (And I'm not including Huck in there. He's a non-issue that will fade before Iowa, no matter how much the MSM love him.)

I wish Fred were stronger in these debates, but he's not. No amount of wishing will turn Fred into a strong contender. He either doesn't have the heart for it, or he's not quite ready for prime time.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 13
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 8:33 AM EST
No clear winner
I watched the full 2.25 hours. There were no clear winners. Rudy was silly on the sanctuary mansion stuff. Mitt was awkward on the Bible question and really bad on the gays in the military question. Fred is not a serious candidate. Huckabee and Tancredo gave a few good answers, when permitted. McCain has everyone's respect, but he is about 10 years too late to run for pres. Ron Paul is loopy.

These debates are so contrived. You can see the candidate's wheels spinning wildly as they have 30 or 60 seconds to come up with the best sound bites for future use. At the same time, however, they have to avoid saying anything that might offend one of hundreds of special interest groups (which is like walking blindfolded through a minefield). How I long for someone who can talk honestly and plainly to the American people, and tell us what we need to hear, rather than what the spin doctors think we want to hear.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 14
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 8:34 AM EST
I disagree
If anything, Romney cemented his John Kerry flip-flopper image. He wouldn't answer anything straight on, but he's great at hemming and hawing and saying he will consult his "advisors."

Boo, hiss... How about a LEADER?

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 15
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 8:35 AM EST
What debate were you watching?
Romney did not win with anyone I know. I'm so disgusted with talking heads proclaiming that this or that candidate won, when in fact, they could have made the same claim before the debate, since they already know who they're rooting for, and always claim that's who won.

Huckabee may well be the most charming candidate up there, but he is by no means the winner - as so many MSM heads have claimed this morning. He is so wrong on Illegals, and taxes, that no real Republican will ever vote for him.

Romney is a double talker, and he was "for it before he was against it", on just about every issue. Seems to be a disease with all Massachusetts Politicians - and a lot of New Yorkers, too.

Fred is not so charismatic as they would like, but the guy is on the right side of all the issues, and I care a lot more about where he stands than how he talks. (And his positions are all long standing, he didn't just convert last year, on anything.)

No one wants to let the man speak, but he is the closest thing to the real thing up there.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 16
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 8:49 AM EST
He won?
I concur with many of the other writers here, to declare Romney the 'winner' of this dubious debate lacks credulity. With all due respect, either you are shilling for the Romney camp or you weren't watching the same debate.

I'm not sure you could declare anyone the 'winner' based on what I saw last night. Huckabee and Paul seemed to convey their messages the most directly. I'm not sure why Hunter and Tancredo are even up there, comical relief maybe? Thompson has the most appealing message but trips all over himself to get it out. McCain was the grumpy old man he usually is. And Guiliani came across as a bitter sniper trying to score points against Romney whenever he could.

Thus we come to Romney. I'll give him marks for looking the part, and I'd have to go back to Clinton to find someone who could say so much without saying anything. The examples of this have been sited several times here already between the 'Bible' answer to the 'Gay' answer, I had no idea where he was going and I don't think he did either. I don't think any of the candidates found their own question (meaning answered an entirely different question than the one asked them) more times than Mr. Romney. I cannot envision him withstanding the whithering assault to come from Hillary if he cannot answer direct questions from some weirdo brandishing a Bible.

As a side note, Hillary is no shoe in no matter what the pundits are saying and I wish the candidates would stick to the matter at hand rather than trying to show how they can beat her. I think just about anyone up there has as good a chance as any to beat her.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 17
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 8:50 AM EST
Also, We thought most questions were
valid. So many are poo-poohing the questioners this morning, and I agree the Dem plants were bad form, but the majority of the questions were good ones, and even the bad ones were good to show the character of the candidates.

I thought the Bible question was unfair, and CNN was wrong to include it, but it did offer the candidates the opportunity to say "None of your business", but instead, the few who answered tried to pander to the people they suppose believe that to be a valid question. It's not.

Religious questions are best left to church - Not the political process. Ask if they will support your position on life, or death, or freedom to practice YOUR religion, but don't expect answers to their private personal beliefs.

I loved most of the questions, though. The guy with the gun was great, and I loved the two black guys asking about black on black crime. That was a great opportunity to speak out, but I heard nothing worth printing from Mitt, who was Governor over one of the worst crime cities, Boston. It's a hell hole there, and he did very little to make it better. He appointed Liberal judges, and his whole crack down on Illegals miraculously materialized 10 minutes before he left office, and was overturned before even one illegal was bothered.

Mitt won - NOT a chance.

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 18
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 8:51 AM EST
Correction
I meant to say Huckabee was the winner, not Tancredo. Another thing, it was blatently obvious that Ron Paul was purposefully pushed aside, as the poster above mentioned and I will go even a little further and say that he was treated direspectfully by John M and definately by the moderator. He was the only one who was cut off and not allowed to finish his thoughts, when the others talked and talked well over their time limit, on and on went the front runners. As well as the majority of the moderators requests for them to speak. It pissed me off and if that was my feeling by a non paulite, just imagine how his supporters are going to react. We just may see the revolution start earlier than expected and I suspect money will flow like a river into his campaign. One thing for sure is that America loves an underdog, especially one who stands for something more than hot air.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 19
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 8:52 AM EST
how much is he paying you?
Hoestly, if Romney was looking for a PR he could have done a lot better than Hewitt. Although I didn't see the debate, from what I have read on a variety of blogs this morning is that Romney came off the worst of the candidates. But then that's nothing new.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 20
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 8:54 AM EST
Slick
Romney gets accused of being slick, but I'm guessing that's just a synonym for competent.

Prior to and during the 2002 Winter Olympics in SLC, I worked for the local sports media and was able to see Romney work on a daily basis. His leadership skills and ability to transcend partisanship(as evidenced by his relationship with ultra-liberal SLC mayor Rocky Anderson) are exactly what's needed in the White House. The next president, if it's a Republican, will have to work with the other side of the aisle in order to accomplish goals that are vital for this nation to remain, or recapture, our status in the world.
Most TH posters cringe at the thought of compromise in politics, but that's because they don't understand politics. After 20 years of Bush/Clinton/Bush, this country needs competence and leadership over ideology.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 21
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 8:55 AM EST
Romney was booed most often

From what I saw Mr. Romney was booed every time he waffled on an issue, and that was often. His perfect hair could not hide that.

If anyone "won" the debate in terms of Joe and Sally Sixpack it was Huckabee. In terms of thinking Americans it was Dr. Paul who won. He was clearly picked on by everyone despite being the most conservative candidate out there. A critical thinker would ask themselves why.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 22
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 8:56 AM EST
Romney Lost Me Last Night
As I have much beter things to do on weeknights than watch a debate, I received my news of the debate from the newspaper and internet accounts this morning. In the debate, Romney trampled on the glorious flag of the South and, thus, declared war on the South. Mitt Romney is not fit to wipe the boots of the lowest Southern private. To compare Romney with Robert E. Lee is to compare an ant with a mountain.

To paraphrase that old Lynyrd Skynyrd tune, Southern Man don't need Romney around, anyhow.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 23
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 9:15 AM EST
Jeez Hugh couldn't you even PRETEND
to tell the unbiased truth. This is not even funny anymore. You should be ashamed.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 24
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 9:19 AM EST
Derek
Just out of curiosity, how did Romney trample on the "glorious flag of the South"? It seems to me that all he did was acknowledge the divisive nature of what the flag has become. The fact is, the Stars and Bars has become divisive (unfortunately so, IMO).
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 25
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 9:29 AM EST
Sorry Hugh
I guess you're a Mitt guy, and it's your job to say he won. Spin.

I don't know who "won", but I'd say the clear loser was Mr. Romney. (Note: I don't have anything against him, and I wouldn't mind if he were president.) But he can't get there. Not good on the hotseat, and never will be.
He is easily put off and made uncomfortable, which is probably the mark of a nice guy and a gentleman, but Sen Clinton or Sen Obama would eat him alive in a debate forum. Unless Edwards is their nominee, I'd eliminate Mr. Romney for the presidential nod.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 26
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 9:35 AM EST
Romney Hates the South
Romney: "that flag, frankly, is divisive and it shouldn't be shown.....That's not a flag I recognize....The poeple of our country have decided not to fly that flag. I think that's the right thing."

The Confederate battle flag is a flag of absolute honor. Mitt Romney goes about as far as John McCain in mudslinging that glorious flag. I fly the Confederate battle flag and and I defy Romney's manhood if he would attempt to have me lower the flag. The Confederate flag should be the national flag of a Confederate States of America, a nation destroyed by a coterie of Yankee scoundrels led by Abe Lincoln.

As for the flag being divisive, it is only divisive to black rabblerousers who never vote Republican. If Romney thinks that he can win black votes for trampling on the flag of the South he is sadly mistaken.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 27
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 10:13 AM EST
A Great Debate
I read a lot of comments about how Mitt Romney struggled with the Bible question but Rudy and Huckabee all answered that question. They all thought of it as a trip-up question to see if they believed in a literal interpretation of every word. They all answered that they believed in the Bible and some of it was left to interpretation. So, they all three gave about the same answer. I believe Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee were the strongest Conservatives on the floor last night and both will be boosted in the polls because of it. I have to say that I think Guiliani's poll numbers are going to begin to fall because of this debate...WATCH.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 28
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 10:15 AM EST
So Derek..
I suppose you also support those who want to fly the Mexican flag in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California, since those states used to be part of Mexico, a nation shrunk by a coterie of Yankee scoundrels led by James K Polk?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 29
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 10:18 AM EST
Lily writes
I once worked for a guy like that, who would screw every employee in the place and never stop smiling beautifully the whole time. Beware of the slick smiler who, as Shakespeare said, "Would smile and smile and smile and be a villain".

We already got screwed - by George Bush. He had a congress that was his and didn't change anything. He spent like crazy. I can see it coming from Rudy, who refuses to say that he will get rid of forty million illegals. He's just winking away, a Bush clone, business as usual Rudy.

At least Romney is taking a stand on the most important issue of our time - immigration. We're not talking 12 mil, but 40-50 mil which will be 100 million over a couple of generations (if not more). This is big business and the global economy bunch trying to milk America for all the money it can borrow. It is a recipe for disaster, and Rudy is following right behind Jorge.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 30
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 10:20 AM EST
Derek
Finally someone mentions the flag. This is one of the critical mistakes that Romney made last night. I am a Yankee, but even I understand the value and honor in the confederate flag as a symbol of the South and states rights.

Regardless of personal opinion on the flag, he should have realized that there are millions of Americans who cherish that flag. It appears in some form in nearly every state flag in the south. In one fell swoop, he lost a major stronghold of the Republican party. And don't think the Democrats will let anyone forget it.

In addition to a school-boy fight with Giuliani with little to no substance and other various miscues, I think Romney very well may have just lost the nomination. The South Carolina primary should be very telling.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 31
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 10:20 AM EST
Romney would win
only in the sense that Rudy would lose.

Romney dissembles and parses as much or better than Bill Clinton.

A thoroughly untrustworthy candidate.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 32
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 10:23 AM EST
Torture
Ah... the other issue I just remembered that sunk Romney's boat. How could he have possibly handled the issue of torture worse than his interchange with McCain. No, Romney did not do well at all.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 33
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 10:25 AM EST
It's obvious Hugh
I listen to your show just about every evening and enjoy it thoroughly -- but it is painfully clear that you are tethered to Gov. Romney.

I guess the trees are too thick -- or is that the forest. I'll still be tuning in because you do have the second best show on the radio -- I think you know who number one is ("hush" chile!).

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 34
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 10:26 AM EST
Bizarro World?
I watched the debate last night and thought I was in bizarro world. The kooks who asked the questions really ought to get a life other than on YouTube. Here's my analysis of the candidates.

Ron Paul--He looks like he jumped out of the Wizard of OZ movie. He comes across as a grumpy old man who should have stayed with his profession as a physician. His ideas and his personality do not connect.

John McCain--The man looks old and he's been through a lot more crap in his lifetime than I have. He should retire and enjoy the remaining years of his life. Like Kerry, his brutal experiences in the Vietnam War are no longer relevant. Time has passed him by. His bill, which became law, to muffle political critics slammed the door on any hopes of becoming president.

Fred Thompson--looks old and tired. He should save his energy for his young wife. It's over, Fred.

Mike Huckabee--should be used by Jerry Seinfeld to promote his Bee movie. He's way out of his league.

Mitt Romney--is young looking, personable, and charismatic. He is the super car salesman who could sell you a wreck and make you feel you'd got a bargain. I wonder why he never ran for governor of Michigan and turned around that state. That resume highlight would almost have guaranteed him election to the presidency. If nominated, there's no way he's going to carry Massachusetts even though he was governor.

Rudy Giuliani --was a prosecutor and he always will be a prosecutor. The way his mouth turned down when Mitt Romney criticized him made me fear for Romney's life. He better be sure he never bounced a check. Rudy is an SOB and that's what the Republicans may need in the White House. You cross him and he will punish you one way or another. I don't think he ever forgets--or forgives-- his enemies.

Duncan Hunter--is a hunter and absolutely right on immigration but that's only one trophy in his resume, not enough to be elected president or even get nominated.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 35
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 10:28 AM EST
Hugh Is SO Wrong!
Romney came across as the oleaginous, slimy flip-flopper that he is. That pasted-on Ken Doll smile and darting eyes as he tried to downplay his very liberal positions was unconvincing and false. Giuliani didnt run away or quibble about his former positions, he explained his reasons clearly and took a couple of stands that separated him from the pandering of Romney and the far too strident out-of-the mainstream Right-Wing creepiness of many of the others. Does anybody really think that we're going to load twenty million people into boxcars and ship them across the border? Does the Constitution really say that anyone can own any kind of weapon and the government doesnt have any power the regulate them? maybe some of the mental patients that post on this site think so but these views are election losers, as most Americans are sane. I yearned for someone to yell at Anderson Crapper about the Bible question. They wouldnt dare ask that to the DummyCrats who are currently trying to make Christianity illegal. What baloney. To sum up, Romney's smarminess and lack of conviction were off-putting. He lost big-time, as the polls will show.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 36
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 10:34 AM EST
The South...and Mexico
Until two hours ago, I was a fervant Romney supporter. No more. When Romney goes to bat against the Confederate flag, he is going to bat against me and my people.

As for the Mexican flag flying in the Southwest, we beat the pants off the Mexicans in 1846-48 and took that land from them, territory they and the Spaniards were too imcompetent to improve for two centuries. Mexicans hate America and are natural enemies of the United States. Pancho's attitude is the typical Mexican attitude towards America.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 37
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 10:37 AM EST
MITT ROMNEY .. WON .. .. .. . BIG TIME
Thank you ......Hugh . The voice of reason is so needed . For those who may want : " Evangelicals for Mitt " is a great site . Ann Romney looked great too . ..............Derick Leaberry does not get his info from this site . Or maybe he is a liar as well as an ignorant bigot . I am from North Carolina . My grandfather fought for the South . Mitt Romney did not put my grandfathewr down . Mitt put Derick's ignorance down . Of course someone else told me to say that Derick was for Mitt . RIGHT ..............TO BE RATHER THAN TO SEEM ....N.C.SEAL
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 38
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 10:38 AM EST
Romney Lost Bigtime
One thing summed up Romney's slick, political opportunism for me: Fred Thompson's video ad exposing Romney's abortion views. Talk about a flip flopper. I don't want Romney now or ever. Used car salesman, anyone?

If you are a conservative there is only one clear choice for President; Fred Dalton Thompson. In fact, after last night's debate, I would think all of the other candidates want to vote for Fred. They all (except RP) said, "I agree with Fred." They don't dare attack him. (Except for Rudy falsely claiming Fred has no leadership experience. Fred does have leadership experience in the Senate, at the federal level, unlike Guiliani).

He has put all of his policy proposals in great detail. They are conservative to the nth degree, especially on abortion, illegal immigration, taxes, 2nd amendment, etc. He has the highest rating for voting consistency among watchdog groups.

Those who complain; do you want form over subtance? If not, then you have a clear choice.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 39
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 10:40 AM EST
Most people gave the win to Huckabee
Captian Ed gave the win to Huckabee.

Ponnuru said: So the Politico ran a damaging story on [Rudy]. So his numbers in early states are looking worse. So Romney did pretty well in the debate, and won the immigration exchange. So he didn't dominate the debate the way he usually does, and reminded Second Amendment activists of their differences. [Rudy] still had a good day, because Huckabee had a good day.

I have always thought that Giuliani could not win a two-man primary. I no longer believe that. He could beat Huckabee even in a two-man race. He can root for Huckabee to take out all his stronger competitors.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDI0NDBiMDMzYjgyYW I4Nzg1YTEwNDZhMDM5YmE5Y2M=

Kate O'Beirne said: Mitt Romney had a really good night, but it would have been even better if Huckabee hadn't had such a good one too.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDRmZTZlYTc1ODA2Yj U5ZGQ3NzhjOGMzYTUxZjhhMjE=

K-Lo says: Yes, I don't think Huck's going away anytime soon, my personal preferences aside. http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWQ0YjljMjE2ZmUwY mZhZTZmZThjM2FiYzA1NmVhNmI=
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 40
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 10:43 AM EST
You may not like it
But Romney DID show he can hit back hard last night. He took a lot of punches (because every other cantidate is beginning to realize what Mitt did 2 years ago) that early states matter, and Romney is strong there. So they went after him, and he came back at them just as hard.

His responses to Guiliani were quite frankly, some political boxing worthy of Bill Clinton (yes, Clinton is a political fox - I hate his politics, but the guy can bob and weave better than anyone alive, except perhaps Romney last night). He basically turned Guiliani on his head and stuck him on the point of illegals. As a political junkie, it was pretty cool to watch.

Look folks, the bottom line is the GOP nominee will either be Romney or Guiliani. Huckabee does NOT have the coin to go the distance, or the appeal outside of evangelical circles. He's just too provincial. WAAAAY too provincial.

Make your peace with one of them. Romney has not had a bad debate performance. He's been unflappable in his temperment in every single debate, and he's got the ability to articulate his positions well enough to beat down Hillary in the general.

If you've got a bias against mormons, I can't help you. Make your peace then with a Pro-Choice GOP cantidate this cycle is all I can say.

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 41
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 10:44 AM EST
What debate
There has not been a real "Debate " televised. All we have seen are nothing more than Meet and Greet the mirriad of candidates running. I also think the Liberal or Conservative slant to those debates (depending on which network hosted) has been obvious.
It's time to weed out the pretenders on both sides. We know who they are. We know who truly has a chance and who does not. Lets hear real DEBATES from them. Fred Thompson issued the challange last night. We know the top 3 from each party. Let's "get er done"!!!

P.S. If your hopeful is not one of the top 3 you need to have a backup or at least be willing to support whoever wins the nomination. As for me, Anyone but a Democrat.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 42
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 10:47 AM EST
Hugh Your Wrong!
The winner of last night's debate is clinton and the clinton news network. If you can look at that hack job of a debate and call Romney the winner, you sir, are as clearly out of touch with reality as the cnn exec's who believe they sponsored a bi-partisan debate.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 43
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 10:48 AM EST
No, Romney just HAD a bad debate
His answers on the confederate flag and torture were absolutely abysmal. In two fell swoops, he alienated a lot of people who might have been sympathetic towards him. While he may not lose his base of support, he will certainly not be picking up an converts. This was by no means a victory for Romney. His best chance is that people either forget or never hear about his answers on these issues.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 44
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 10:51 AM EST
DERICK IS AN UNCARING LIAR AND BIGOT
Derick if you think that what you are saying will be todays sound bite you and Chris Matthews should be very happy together . Do you think everybody is as stupid as you ? The war of the states was not fought for bigots such as yourself . If you want to fight , stick your head where the sun does not shine and fight for air .Or maybe that is already your situation ....... Mitt Romney and Ann Romney are great Americans .
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 45
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 10:54 AM EST
Put Up, chuck
Chuck, I have quoted Romney from a CNN report by Peter Hamby. If Romney has been misquoted, your problem is with the CNN reporter. Since it was a national debate, I am sure that if Romney was misquoted, that will come out. As I am sure the debate was transcribed, I doubt that CNN made up the Romney quotes.

chuck, I can only deduce that you are lying when you say that I lie about the Romney quotes.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 46
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 10:54 AM EST
Bluecollar
You are right. We know who the three top candidates are: Huckabee, Ron Paul, and Duncan Hunter. But seriously, if the past is any indication, the polls are usually WAY off leading up to the first primary. No one can say who the real front-runners are, and Romney and Giuliani did not have a good night. The fact is that there are at least six people who have a legitimate chance at the nomination. And yes, that DOES include Ron Paul. His poll numbers have been rising steadily, and he is bringing in money like no other candidate right now. It is way to early to count him out of this race.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 47
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 10:54 AM EST
Wild extrapolation
"Pancho's attitude is the typical Mexican attitude towards America."

What attitude? I asked if you supported flying the Mexican flag in areas that were formerly Mexico, since you support flying the confederate flag in what was formerly the CSA.

It's quite telling that you consider people who have lived in this country for centuries as Mexicans instead of Americans, though. Do you consider only those of white European heritage as being Americans?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 48
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 10:57 AM EST
chuck
chuck, you have a big mouth. Unlike yourself with the silly nickname, I post under my own name. Any time you want to meet man to man, I am easy to find.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 49
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 10:58 AM EST
How would YOU answer
a question about the confederate flag?

"Oh yeah, I think all it symbolizes is just great. Slavery, dissolution of our union, more deaths than any war in our history. Hang it from the capital spire. It's a real unifier for the US."

Please. I realize the South sees it as a symbol of states' rights, but you guys are the only ones.

Here's an idea - nominate Huckabee. Then you can still pull out of the union when you're the only states that actually vote for him.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 50
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 11:01 AM EST
Hugh
I still respect you, however, you are on your way to becoming a hack for Romney, just as cnn is a hack for clinton.

In your rush to declare Romney the winner of last night's scam....er debate, you have now missed your opportunity to show disgust with cnn over the partisan farce advertised as a republican presidential debate. That's the real story here, not who "won" the debate.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 51
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 11:09 AM EST
Khomar and Derek use LIES and BIGOTRY
I am from North Caolina and my grandfather fought for the South .He did not fight for BIGOTS like Khomar or Derek . The N. C. state seal says ......TO BE RATHER THAN TO SEEM . If they want to fight... SEEMS... to me these two need to stick their heads where the sun does not shine and fight for air . Or maybe that is their situation already . ON the torture guestion : : all captured should worry more about the size of my boot rather that Khomar turning the temp to 65 . OH MY ................MITT ROMNEY ...WON BIG BIG
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 52
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 11:14 AM EST
About What I Expected
Mitt Romney=Proven Leader, Not Afraid to Drop The Gloves, Presidential Material.

Rudy = NYC Loudmouth and Self Promoter. No more a Republican than Rosie is anorexic.

Fred Thompson = What you see/hear is what you get. MUST get a spot on The GOP Ticket.

Mike Huckabee = An Empty Suit.

Duncan Hunter = EXCELLENT but largely ignored :(.

Tom Tancredo = Largely ignored!

Ron Paul = CUCKOO! CUCKOO! CUCKOO!
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 53
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 11:15 AM EST
Hugh, what were you smoking last night?
The very fact that you think Romney won last nights debate reveals you have an agenda. If Romney tried to look any worse than he did last night, I don't know if he could have!!!

Like everyone else is saying, you either didn't watch the debate, were impaired while watching or have an agenda. Which one is it?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 54
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 11:18 AM EST
Hugh-Lay off the crack pipe-
After all the verbal stumbles of the Bush presidency we have finally discovered someone who can communicate republican principles with wit & wisdom. Huckabee won Hands down. He is the most articulate, humble, real candidate out of all of them. McCain came out ok--looked a little tired and irritated. Romney just got a beating..wow..definitely NOT his night. I wonder what Hugh Hewitt and all those who were so ready to give Romney the mantle of conservatism are doing after this one. HUCKABEE is a force to be contended with, and tonight he showed WHY he is on the rise in Iowa. The Underdog is poised to take a bite out of Rudy McRomney on Jan 3rd. The others were all a distant..3rd...Duncan Hunter had some ok stuff and Fred is frankly coming across as kinda like..hey man ..someone please pick me for VP so I can sport my hot wife around DC. And what was with the INQUISTION Style question the crackpot youtuber asked about the Bible(As if he has ever read it)(and all the man on man gay questions...and the rebel flag...weird..there had to be some better questions that those...but wow did the gays in the military question make Romney look like a TOTAL flip flopper...what a bad night for him.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 55
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 11:20 AM EST
The Rankings
1 (Tie) Romney: Romney need not concern himself with candidates outside of the 2-man race - he needed to go after Giuliani and he did. Giuliani looked like a bafoon...which was exactly what Romney needed.

1 (Tie) Fred: Fred's responses were right on point. The timing of his shot at Rudy's hypocrisy over "regretting who you hire" could have been better, but Fred certainly nailed every one of his questions. He is the most concise and to-the-point of all candidates - I like that.

2. McCain: McCain's answers were patriotic, American, and worthy of applause. His attack on Mitt seemed a little misguided (since Mitt's answer was that he would consider the opinion of experts like McCain before making a decision on interrogation issues.) McCain is out of the race as far as I'm concerned, but for the most part - I liked his answers.

3. Huck: Huck nailed his bible question (I should hope an ordained minister can handle that one.) Other than illegal immigration (which Huck does not want to stand out on) he didn't stand out on anything else. I don't care how well he articulates his position on illegal immigration, he is wrong. He reponse proves how far out of line he really is with the GOP base, and Huck shouldn't have let that cat out of the bag if he wanted to win the nod.

4. Rudy: Rudy was flustered, angry, and it was obvious. He was off-base on his facts; Mitt pounced on Rudy's screw-up of the facts man-handled him sharply, but without being mean. Mitt was very presidential - Rudy was quite the opposite.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 56
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 11:20 AM EST
You think Romney won?
If that was a Romney win...then we Republicans are in serious trouble. Contrast Romney's responses in the debate to those of John McCain, Mike Huckabee or Duncan Hunter. While Romney stumbled and bumbled through several questions, these other candidates spoke with conviction and without hesitation. They know what they believe about the issues and say so honestly. Rudi and Mitt are starting to sound like the Clintons. In other words, give me the question and let me get back to you after my advisors do some serious polling to find out what the "right" answer is that will generate the most favorable response. See what the rest of America is saying about who won last night.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 57
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 11:24 AM EST
chuck
Please consider taking grammar lessons at your local junior high school.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 58
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 11:29 AM EST
The nation will be more secure
if we stop listening to Republican hacks like Mr. Hewitt. Hewitt notes the MSM bias. What part of the MSM elites is it that he belongs to?

The entire process is rigged, with power concentrated in the hands of the elites from the DEM/GOP/MSM propaganda machines. The big lie is in full mode, the one that tells us that only "they" have the necessary wisdom, experience, and knowledge to govern.

The sooner we wake up to the scam that the elites have been pulling on us, the sooner we can restore the Constitution, rule of law, and will of the people as the principles of governing our great country. We cannot afford another elite President from either party. We need to upset this hold on power that they have created for themselves, reassert our authority as the rightful owners of this nation, and get the attention of the elites. The best way to do that is to deny them that which they desire above all else, the Presidency.

If you want to see how the elites have created a virtual lock on power in Washington and how we can reclaim the birthright that has been stolen from us, visit my website, JOEOLIVAFORPRESIDENT.ORG. It is the one place you will find a candidate not tied to party machines, PACs, or corrupt lobbyists, and the only place with common sense solutions to the challenges ahead. Check it out, why not? Are we going to do the same thing again, vote the lesser of two evils, and then expect a different result? That would be, according to Einstein, insane! Visit the site and send along your comments. It is our nation, let's reclaim our inheritance. Thanks, Joe
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 59
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 11:31 AM EST
Derek ....... BE BRAVE
Who is your 2nd choice for pres. if you had to vote today ? What faith are you ? Are you a DEM. Rep .or what ? What drew you to Mitt in the first place ?...................:: ...:: ...........1 . Hunter 2 . no church "Evangelicals for Mitt " 3 . Indep. 4 . His record and his family ...............MITT ROMNEY ...WON BIG ...SO ...BIG
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 60
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 11:33 AM EST
After the debate
The debate itself is less important than what happens after the debate. Romney got what he needed (his performance at times could have been better). He did as well or better than Rudy. He hit Huck on immigration.

McCain did well as a debater as usual. Will it make any difference in his poll numbers a week from now. Probably not. That is the key point. Huck did well at times hid when he needed to and got some easy questions. It will help his buzz but that mostly hurts Fred who is finally starting to counter attack.

Romney will take care of himself and Huckabee in the right way at the right time. The Rudy/Huck team is his only obstacle at the moment and both have corruption problems.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 61
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 11:36 AM EST
chuck the truck....
writes:

"He did not fight for BIGOTS like Khomar or Derek."

I didn't see anything wrong with Derek's postings, and I've been around Townhall long enough to know that Khomar is a gentleman who debates on facts, whether you agree or disagree. I always detect a someone on the losing end of an argument when they have to rely on the ad hominem attack.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 62
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 11:38 AM EST
Unless it is square
Derek Leaberry:

Unless it is square, you are flying the Second Confederate Naval Ensign which was used by the Confederate Navy when the Stars and Bars was replaced by the Stainless Banner as the national flag in May of 1863.

It was though used by the army as well that being the Army of the Tennessee. Johnson ordered A.T. flags to be square just like those used by the ANV but due to a mistake at the Atlanta Depot, they were sent rectangular ones instead.

But to be technical the Confederate Battle Flag is the one adopted by the Army of Northern Virginia in the fall of 1861 since the Stars and Bars were so easily confused with the Union colors and that flag was square. You can get flags that are true reproductions of the battle flag, but not at your usual on the side of the road tourist shop.

Romney is a Yankee, what do you expect him to say?

He seems not to be a very smart Yankee either. Can't win the GOP without the south and saying bad things about that flag will win you no votes down here--at least from those that vote in the GOP primaries.



Flag as Offensive

Reply # 63
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 11:41 AM EST
Derek we all have talents
It is warped space not warp speed and no thing can travel faster that the speed of c . We need to work on your lies and bigotry .All thou your mom is proud of you .
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 64
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 11:43 AM EST
Komar
Certain candidates in any election run for 1 of 2 reasons only. To bring a particular issue to the forefront or to get some national recognition. Clearly there are candidates from both parties doing exactly that or they would have droped out already. Lets face some facts.
1) The campaigning started very early this go round and that has helped those particular candidates stay in the public eye.
2) To be elected president you have to have the complete package. Money, Looks or at least good stage presence, and clear definable and "Passable" policy. Rehtoric only goes so far.
This is very critical election for this country and it is time to weed out the posers. It is time for the people to let the top 3 know what we want in no uncertain terms and hear thier solutions. The BIG QUESTION then becomes, Will you suport your party or not. Will you vote to retain the Whitehouse and regain the congress or not.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 65
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 11:45 AM EST
Wishing won't make it so
Poor Mr. Hewitt. He tries so hard to make Romney shine but the polish won't take. Romney was flustered in the debate by some of the questions, especially when the other candidates called him on his "safe" answer.

Mike Huckabee was the clear winner. Comfortable, confident, articulate and relaxed. And ready to offer help when needed - as when Rudy was asked about his belief in the Bible. Rudy looked surprised that Mike offered to help him - and he was sincere - not trying to make points.

Mike Huckabee was the winner, as usual.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 66
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 11:47 AM EST
Robert writes:
"One can only imagine what you think that you are proving "flying" the Confederate battle flag...maybe you are just another Keyboard commando."

I was born and grew up in Seattle, and have no affiliation with the south, am glad that slavery is long over, but the war over the Union was not a war about slavery, and Abe Lincoln was one of the biggest disasters of a president who essentially nullified the 10th amendment, suspended the gold standard, and created (for any president) the ability to deny habeas corpis on a whim, cost the equivalent of 5 million American lives, and created a cult myth of Father Abe.

All while the rest of the world abolish slavery peacefully.

The south lost a war, and we all pay for it today.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 67
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 11:49 AM EST
Who won?
The above comments prove, it's whoever you have a disposition to support. All the candidates can say the right words. And if you're basing your judgment on sound bites, shame on you.

Rudy is a good administrator, and intelligent and quick lawyer. But his personal life has been a mess and shows poor judgment.

Thompson life has been a series of good fortune. After impregnating his girlfriend, her parents send him to law school. Every teenager should be so fortunate.

McCain. Honored for great service to country, he's been at the public trough ever since.

Paul. Return to the Constitution -- good. Hide our heads in the sand --crazy.

Hunter. I want him on my side in a fight.

Tancredo. Inarticulate, but like Hunter on the right side of their one issue.

Huckabee. 35 years of public speaking have honed his presentation. But his record evidences liberal views on immigration and taxes.

Romney. Intelligent, astute, honorable businessman. Integrity in his personal life. Has achieved amazing success.

You have to go with their record of performance, not their words. No one has matched Romney's achievment in the Olympics, or controling the budget. He's thoughtful, and smart. We need this kind of person as a leader.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 68
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 11:52 AM EST
Come on!
Romney clobbered Giuliani. I think twice, Giuliani got that dazed look on his face that said, "Gosh, what do I say next," or "Gosh, what can I say to that?". Those moments of weakness would be magnified by the MSM against Hillary, their hero.

Comeon! Image counts in America, and Hillary's cosmetic surgery has given her a "lift".

Giuliani looks like a geek who got in over his head. He's George Bush III. He's sanctuary city. "we can't prosecute 12 million illegals..." he said. Astute observation, Rudy, Astute analysis of the problem, Rudy.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 69
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 12:00 PM EST
Actually no.
Khomar:

Of the 11 states that left the Union between December 1860 and May 1861 the Confederate Battle Flag is now found in only Mississippi's state flag which was adopted in the 1890s. Alabama and Florida's are similar--a red St. Andrews Cross on a field of white.

Texas uses the flag of the Texas Republic. North Carolina's looks similar to the Stars and Bars and is exactly like the state flag it used during the war except for the date of April 12, 1776 replacing the date of May 20, 1861. South Carolina's flag is the same state flag it used during the war, but is a revolutionary war design. Virginia's is also the one it used as its state flag in 1861. Arkansas' flag was developed in the early 20th century but one of the four major stars inside the diamond represent the CSA. Louisiana's and Tennessee's also date to the early 1900s. Tennessee's flag does resemble very slightly Cleburne's colors used at the Battle for Chattanooga.

Georgia is an almost exact copy of the Stars and Bars which replaced the ugliest flag in all of North America in 2003. That flag replaced the Georgia flag in 2001 which was dominated by the Confederate Battle Flag which in turn had replace another modified Stars and Bars flag in 1956 as a symbol to the US government of Georgia's opposition to Brown V. Board and desegregation.

Now you know.







Flag as Offensive

Reply # 70
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 12:00 PM EST
Derek, go ahead, fly the Stars and Bars
but you should have the good sense to fly it in accordance with flag etiquette along with the Stars and Stripes. I learned in the service in the 60's how strong Southerners feelings are about the war (much to my surprise as North-westerner) but I noticed that is was as much about those who died for their cause as it was a political statement.

When you run into trouble is when you denigrate President Lincoln, who went to great lengths to try and re-assimilate the people of the South (like any large scale political effort it was troubled by people with an agenda, but his stated effort was noble).
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 71
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 12:04 PM EST
myths about Regularization Rudy
and the Huckster..
Rudy is a ticking time bomb; scandal and innuendo go with him like toast and jelly. You can bank on Shrillary having stored up some dirt-- it is Clintonesque. And for those who imagine that he will give us security, my God, Sanctuary City Rudy?!?! The FBI KNOWS that potential militant Islamics have waltzed across the Mexican border because of RINO, open borders, globalist Presidente Jorge. Regularization Rudy is JUST like Jorge-- been there, done that! Once burned, shame on them! And who presumes that only Rudy could beat the Wicked Witch? The MSM keeps pitching that, but polls are indefinite at best.

If the Clintons keep lying and planting questions, she has no chance. Watch ILLEGALS keep growing in import among the voters-- independents, who decide elections, now rank it THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE, and NOBODY but LULAC wants a path to citizenship. Bill Bennett and others say it is spreading like a wildfire. That alone sinks the boats of Rudy, phony preacher Huckster, and Shrillary on close inspection. It will be a wedge issue all right, but 74% are on Middle America's side of the wedge.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 72
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 12:07 PM EST
joe_america writes
"When you run into trouble is when you denigrate President Lincoln, who went to great lengths to try and re-assimilate the people of the South (like any large scale political effort it was troubled by people with an agenda, but his stated effort was noble)."

Yeah, that's like saying that some husband who has beaten and raped his wife, and NEVER admits he is wrong, but he's gone a long way to reconcilliation which was noble.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 73
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 12:07 PM EST
Great fight
CNN sucks big time but it was a great debate if you're a Paulite. When Rudy, Mitt and Huck try and strangle each other, it makes all the other candidates look like statesman. Thompson and McCain came up a few notches last night which further evens the field. We know it's a longshot but when you divide up the votes 6 ways, 15% looks pretty good. And if every last one of your supporters shows up in a tin foil hat to vote this primary season, well - you know what they say about suprises.

Also, great job by Tancredo and Hunter - two guys, like Paul, who have the guts to tell it like it is even if they don't agree on Iraq.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 74
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 12:14 PM EST
CNN YouTube Rigged Evil
This is not a matter of political cycles. This is a matter of mass media ideological war on the American Constitution and citizenry. The DemKrats will DESTROY the entire REAGAN REVOLUTION if she and he get back inside the Oval Office. (Consider the undying shame we will feel to see this!) Again, until our candidates stop themselves from believing in the media environment and in the assumption that their opponents are loyal Americans with a different point of view, and start to address, start to point their index fingers into their faces the way Lou Dobbs did in his hour to the CNN reporter Dobbs KNEW was working to fix the questions before the debate and begin by identifying the RadLib Media as a POLITICAL OPERATION, and the Tyrant SheHe as a liar, cheat, and Alinskian enemy of America, our candidates to a man will continue to play Charlie Brown to Hillary's Lucy.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 75
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 12:14 PM EST
Mitt Romney/Debate
Mitt missed a golden opportunity to take Huckabee down when Huckabee talked about illegals working their way up from poverty and how he too worked his way up from poverty, etc. Mitt should have said, "Yes, but the difference is YOU are an American citizen."
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 76
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 12:16 PM EST
Lies, Bigotry
Regarding lies, I read Gov. Romney's debate quotes out of news sources, debate remarks which can be verified. I don't see how I could be considered a liar. The words quoted were those of Mitt Romney and not me.

Regarding bigotry, referring to the sort of black protesters against the Confederate flag as black rabblerousers is accurate and not a form of bigotry in any way. The Jacksons and Sharptons of the world are rabblerousers.

As for charges of bigotry, then charge the Republican voters of Georgia in 2002. Defense of the Confederate was one of the instruments of victory for the Republicans in Georgia that year. In the Mississippi referendum of a few years back, it was white Republican voters who voted en-masse to retain the state flag with the Confederate flag prominently displayed on part of it. Call them bigots.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 77
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 12:18 PM EST
Gays and Torture
On gays and torture.

McCain stated his views on water torture, in front of the world. He has experience, he must also be aware of when it is appropriate to discuss these matters in public. Mccain loves the military, true, but does he actually believe that he can do whatever the hell he wants in all things pertaining to the military without talking to military leaders because he was a POW? Cranky and Pushy.

Romney didnt want to discuss torture in front of the world, but with military leaders who know more about it. He obviously is aware that there is a war going on and a youtube debate is not the forum to discuss torture.

Gays
I personally am aware that there are gays in the military. There is definately more lesbians than gays. Immorality is rampant in the military and sexual vulgarity and promiscuity is rampant at basic training and advanced training.

To me it is very hypocritical of the armed forces to not allow gays and lesbians to be open while at the same time condoning lewd talk and behavior by straight servicemen and women.

I think gays and lesbians ahould be allowed to serve. I dont need to hear about their sexual preference. I also dont need to hear about the sexual exploits of straight enlisted servicemen and women.

The Army value of Morality is not adhered to, it's taught tounge and cheek, as a "have to say it", and is followed up with locations all around the world to get satisfied sexually and what your girlfriend or wife doesnt know wont hurt them.






Flag as Offensive

Reply # 78
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 12:19 PM EST
who I could support
I voted twice for the putative "lesser evil" in Presidente Jorge Bush-- what a disaster! No more globalist, open border, neoCON, RINOS! Rudy is cut from the same rotten cloth, and smooth-talkin' conman preacher Huckster loves ILLEGALS, but is trying artfully like Regularization Rudy to hide the incriminating truth. The Huckster favors free tuition for ILLEGALS, "Who should not be punished for the sins of their parents." Hey Huckster, most AMERICANS do not get free tuition! Charity begins at home, pal-- and for LEGITIMATE residents!

While TH posters (a relatively astute, articulate crowd generally) rightly disagree about many issues, when you factor out the trolls and ethnocentric soreheads and zealots, there is amazing consensus about ILLEGALS. I immediately laugh when they pull out racism, xenophobia, compassion, and the classic, "undocumented workers just doing jobs Americans won't do."

Fred and Mitt are saying the right things about ILLEGALS, and realistically we do not elect obscure Congressmen as POTUS, so I could support either of these two. Check out Fred's thoughtful plans for ILLEGALS, a flat tax, etc.

http://www.fred08.com/virtual/Immigration.aspx
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 79
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 12:20 PM EST
Gays and Torture
On gays and torture.

McCain stated his views on water torture, in front of the world. He has experience, he must also be aware of when it is appropriate to discuss these matters in public. Mccain loves the military, true, but does he actually believe that he can do whatever the hell he wants in all things pertaining to the military without talking to military leaders because he was a POW? Cranky and Pushy.

Romney didnt want to discuss torture in front of the world, but with military leaders who know more about it. He obviously is aware that there is a war going on and a youtube debate is not the forum to discuss torture.

Gays
I personally am aware that there are gays in the military. There is definately more lesbians than gays. Immorality is rampant in the military and sexual vulgarity and promiscuity is rampant at basic training and advanced training.

To me it is very hypocritical of the armed forces to not allow gays and lesbians to be open while at the same time condoning lewd talk and behavior by straight servicemen and women.

I think gays and lesbians ahould be allowed to serve. I dont need to hear about their sexual preference. I also dont need to hear about the sexual exploits of straight enlisted servicemen and women.

The Army value of Morality is not adhered to, it's taught tounge and cheek, as a "have to say it", and is followed up with locations all around the world to get satisfied sexually and what your girlfriend or wife doesnt know wont hurt them.

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 80
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 12:25 PM EST
Romney won??
Hugh - I normally like your commentary and you have a great mind for political commentary... usually. The only thing Romney won was the "Deer in the Headlights" award. The guy was Hillary in a dark suit the way he was dancing around!

The winner.. Mike Huckabee.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 81
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 12:28 PM EST
Dr. B, don't be so stupid
The flag doesn't represent slavery anymore than the Union flag did--Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, and Delaware were all slave states and didn't leave the Union. The Army of the Cumberland had regiments from Kentucky (a slave state). At Pickett's Mill, Kentucky infantry were facing Alabama dismounted calvary--I'd argue there were slaveholders and non-slaveholders on both sides of the field that day in May 1864.

A small majority of those in the CSA Army (who designed the flag as the Stars and Bars were so easaily confused with the Union colors) were slaveholders and Pat Cleburne--IMO the best general of the war on either side--suggested as early as Jan. 4, 1864 for the slaves to be freed.

The war was not over slavery. Secession was, but the war was not. Read Lincoln's August 1862 letter to Greeley. For the Union it was to preserve it, for the South it was independence. Even the government of the CSA was willing to abandon slavery if it meant independence by the end of the war.



Flag as Offensive

Reply # 82
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 12:28 PM EST
Ad hominem
Some times all we have is the moment . Derek at 10:34 seemed to not being honest about his support for Mitt . And I did not like Derek's attack on Mitt about our Rebel flag . As I hope you know many use the Rebel flag as a sign for bigotry . Do you think it is OK to speak out ? Does your logic allow you to be offensive to blacks and Mexicans too ? I do like ad hominem ,thanks
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 83
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 12:29 PM EST
Hewitt is wrong!
Hugh, can't disagree with you more. The winners of last nights debate are Huckabee and McCain. Romney is not authenic, and that was very apparent in Romney's performance-too scripted and sound bite oriented. But, Romney was much better than Guiliani.

The problem with Hugh's position is he is so concerned about electability and the party status-quo, he will help nominate Romney or Guiliani. This is exactly what Hillary wants, a Republican candidate that represents everything that Americans voted against in 2006.

Finally concerning Huckabee's conservatism, any candidate that supports the fair-tax as passionately as he does is anything but a liberal or moderate. Stop the distortion on Huckabee's political leanings.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 84
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 12:32 PM EST
Huckabee
Wins on delivery. Still wrong on immigration, no matter how nice he is.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 85
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 12:34 PM EST
More idiots!
joe_america:

The Stars and Bars is a flag with a blue canton in the upper left with a circle of white stars that vary in number from seven to as many as 15. The usual numbers are 7 (pre-April 1861) and 11 (post-April 1861). It has three bars of alternating red white and red and looks very similar to the current Georgia flag.

What you mean is the Confederate Battle Flag or 2nd Confederate Naval Ensign which has stars (13) and Bars (two blue bordered in white to form a St. Andrews Cross), but it is NOT the Stars and Bars.

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 86
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 12:36 PM EST
Romney won depending
on what your definition of win is.

If winning means trying to drag the most people down in the dirt with you, then Rudy won.

If being cutsy as a hound dog in drag means a win then Huck won.

If helping me go off to dream land the quickest wins then Thompson won.

If flipping out at the mention of "waterboarding" determines the winner then Mccain won.

But my definition of the winner of the debate is the person who most closely matched my views and walked away with some dignity. That definitely was Mitt Romney. He kept his cool, unlike John Mccain (is it me or are all of his "outbursts" scripted?), did not bring up things better left unsaid (Does Rudy really want to talk about what went on at mansions?), actually put forth his programs with specifics, (Fred keeps talking about how he was touted as having the best plans in a newspaper but never gets around to what that plan happens to be), and must strikingly was able to disagree without being diagreeable. That last one is the thing we need the most in a president right now.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 87
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 12:36 PM EST
the KEY issue per independents
The Attrition Solution
Presidente Jorge has no intention of really cracking down on ILLEGALS or their miscreant employers; he is simply playing a shell game to get "C.I.R."-- scamnesty. We COULD READILY make most ILLEGALS leave via attritive repatriation, provided that our pols are made to realize that > 70% of Americans CLEARLY want them to leave and get in line properly.

Another myth is that we "need" ILLEGAL aliens to do our unpleasant, menial jobs. An advanced economy like today's America with a lower birth rate does need educated, skilled immigrants, but these are rarely among the border crashers. ILLEGALS will become SUBSTANTIAL net users and drains on society per Heritage and other careful analyses.

The key to reversing this egregious, pernicious tsunami is CLEARLY demonstrating to ILLEGALS that we intend to enforce EXISTING laws--> NO licenses, NO jobs, NO welfare, NO social services, NO college tuition, NO passing go, UNLESS you can prove that you have a LEGAL right to be visiting. We also need to crack down on expired visas, which account for an estimated 20% of ILLEGALS.

Then border crashers and visa violators would return at THEIR expense-- the VERY same way they got here. BUT miscreant pols must first be made to reverse the message they are sending which has been aiding and abetting the ILLEGAL invasion, and some need to be turned out of office for flaunting the clear will of middle America. The power and $ are on the other side with the cheap labor lobby and limited interest groups.

Presidente Jorge Bush, Sanctuary City "Regularization Rudy," and other RINOS like Huckster wink at ILLEGALS after they pretend to favor sealing the border and effecting enforcement. If we let the left and RINOS make voters of the 20 million uneducated, culturally disparate ILLEGALS, it is OVER for America-- we will ineluctably rapidly and permanently morph into a third world entitlement state.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 88
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 12:38 PM EST
WOW
Hugh Hewitt has lost all credibility on this primary. Hugh is usually a factual guy, but his unabashed support for Romney while trying to "report" on the facts is getting a little ridiculous.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 89
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 12:40 PM EST
yada yada yada....YADA
So what else is new? Same sheite, different day from the TH Gilt Bird Cabin CINOs. FACT is Mitty, and JulieAnne and Huckafinn are all SOFT on the ONLY issue the GOPers can WIN on--STOPPING the Southern Invasion. Run on THAT and you Triangulate Hitlery on the Wrong side of 70% of the electorate. ANYTHING else and she triangulates you because nearly half ain't gonna vote for her regardless--which means nearly half just might! GOT to pick something she CAN'T Run on and that is Immigration.

Haven't seen the debate yet, wife recorded it, but she says Hunter and Thompson were the ones on the RIGHT side of the Winning Issue WITH the American people. Says she liked Hunter too.
I'm leaning that way, but Hunter, like anyone else who wants my vote has to take the Big Mick Pledge.

the big mick
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 90
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 12:40 PM EST
And yet more idiots
Chuck:

How do you know why people fly "the Confederate flag?" Can you read minds?

And there is nothing called the "Confederate Flag" or "Rebel Flag."

There are various from the Bonnie Blue flag that looks like the flag of Somalia and the various secession flags at the time such as the South Carolina Sovereignity Flag, the three National flags of the Confederacy, the battle flag, the first and second naval ensign, various regiment flags (like Cleburne's full moon on blue flag) and various state flags (such as South Carolina's).

I don't fly any flag--US, CSA or otherwise.

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 91
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 12:40 PM EST
Polls
Polls in the last day or so have Romney running first in SC and second in FL and CA. Rudy has dropped like a rock in SC. We will see if other polls follow.

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 92
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 12:40 PM EST
Pundits, Plants ,and Post Debate Polls
Pundits, Plants ,and Post Debate Polls

Pundits were spinning(Hugh Hewitt), the discoveries of planted questions were beginning...but the real people polled after the debate had Governor Huckabee grinning.

The post debate polls with "actual people/not plants or pudits showed clearly Huckabee won by a landslide.

The Governor is the most articulate, humble, real candidate out of all of them. After all the verbal stumbles of the Bush presidency we have finally discovered someone who can communicate republican principles with wit & wisdom. McCain came out ok. Romney just got a beating..wow..definitely NOT his night. I wonder what Hugh Hewitt and all those who were so ready to give Romney the mantle of conservatism are doing after this one. HUCKABEE is a force to be contended with, and tonight he showed WHY he is on the rise in Iowa. The Underdog is poised to take a bite out of Rudy McRomney on Jan 3rd. The others were all a distant..3rd...Duncan Hunter had some ok stuff and Fred is frankly coming across as kinda like..hey man ..someone please pick me for VP so I can sport my hot wife around DC. And what was with the INQUISTION Style question the crackpot youtuber asked about the Bible(As if he has ever read it)(and all the man on man gay questions...and the rebel flag...weird..there had to be some better questions that those...but wow did the gays in the military question make Romney look like a TOTAL flip flopper...what a bad night for him.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 93
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 12:55 PM EST
Stars and bars not the issue
Good job Derek of getting people off the subject. The stars and bars are not an issue in this election. I am a southerner. Born and bred. Yes there were very honorable men fighting under that flag. But if you were born in the Philipines, would you want to live under the flag of the Rising sun? If you were Jewish would you want to live with a swastika flying over your head. The only flag at issue this election is the American Flag and wether or not we want to continue living under it or not.
BTW the South did not lose, we jus 0-1.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 94
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 12:55 PM EST
Chuck the truck writes:
"As I hope you know many use the Rebel flag as a sign for bigotry . Do you think it is OK to speak out ? Does your logic allow you to be offensive to blacks and Mexicans too ? I do like ad hominem ,thanks"

I am all for you to speak out. But you don't win any debates calling the honorable khomar, or Derek Leaberry, who I re-read many if not all of his posts, bigots. I really doubt everyone (or even a majority who displays the confederate flag, are bigots, rather they do so for their pride in the south in standing up against unconstitutional northern agression. Believe it or not, Chuck, there are those who actually view that there were a lot of evils done in the war between the states and very few good things (like the end of slavery). Did you know it would have been cheaper and cost far fewer lives had Lincoln gave every black 40 acres and a mule than wage that war? And we might have preserved limited government.

Whatever this or that flag may stand for, it still is a message of free speech. If displayed for reasons of bigotry, they are no better than you who claims that everyone who shows pride in the confederate flag, a bigot.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 95
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 12:55 PM EST
excellent analysis
re:
**************************************************
KH17 writes: Thursday, November, 29, 2007 12:36 PM
Romney won depending
**************************************************

Indeed, Rudy showed his mean streak, and it was NOT presidential... his dirty laundry is also piling up. The Huckster was his insincere, sincere self-- anybody remember Jimma'? Slick Willie? The old man Sen. Juan McQuisling has played the war hero/knowing former POW tape WAY too many times-- and the script is indeed hackneyed.

All 3 of those phony boys can run, but they cannot hide from the flash fire most important issue in Middle America per the all-important independents --> stopping ILLEGAL aliens. It is the way to beat the left (Shrillary, et al), and Mitt and Fred have figured that out. Bill Bennett, a globalist open border guy at heart, says that he has NEVER seen such a seminal issue fulminating in the heartland. Mitt ain't perfect, folks, but many worried about Reagan until he clobbered incumbent Carter. I think that Mitt can stanch the Wicked Witch, and Regularization Rudy will self destruct before then. The artful Huckster will not endure careful scrutiny, mainly about embracing his ILLEGAL amigos.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 96
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 12:56 PM EST
Gee what a surprise
You wrote that headline before the debate even started, didn't you Hugh?

Romney looked and sounded good... but he spent half the debate waffling and dodging. But hey, he likes those ag subsidies!

Nice hair though. I question the intelligence of anyone who's unable to see through this pandering, flip-flopping phony; he's like a slightly more conservative version of what would happen if you cloned Kerry and Clinton.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 97
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 12:57 PM EST
Romney won?
More like Hugh Hewitt lost.

Can the GOP please supply a Presidential candidate with the following qualifications:

A person running for President of the greatest nation on earth, not just the Southern Baptist Convention. (Mike Huckabee)

A person more at ease inside its own skin than Mitt Romney. He triangulates his responses almost as much as Hillary.

A person who,unlike Ron Paul, understands the difference between Vo Nguyen Gyap and Osama bin Laden.

A person who is not trying to appeal to the Comedy Central crowd by promising to close Guantanamo and stop water-boarding, like John McCain.

I believe CNN did a great job at dividing the Republican base, once again.

CNN won that debate.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 98
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 12:59 PM EST
The Big Mick Pledge 2nd Try
Apologies if this is a duplicate. Page is glacial in updating and I got a message indicating it may not have posted originally.

The Pledge

WIN the War for Survival Against the Sandnazis on All Fronts.

DEFEND our Southern Border against the Mexican Invasion.

RESTORE Constitutionalism by appointing only Justices from a Consensus List of the Top 10 Most Strict Constructionist.

REDUCE the size of the Fed Gov 3% in real actual terms, not mere slowed growth, every year of your admin.

SECURE my Sacred Franchise by establishing an Iron Clad Fraud Proof Voter Registration, ID, and Voting System.

WIN, DEFEND, RESTORE, REDUCE, SECURE. ALL or NOTHING, no equivocations, in writing and in public. Or I vote for Hillybama in the confident expectation they will shove us the last few inches into Socialism and in the HOPE THAT will ignite the long overdue American Revolution Part 3.

the big mick
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 99
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 1:02 PM EST
Georgia
Derek Leaberry:

Barnes defeat had nothing to do with the flag, but had everything to do with the fact that he was an arrogant, corrupt b*astard.

He tried to push a major road through that few wanted (and it turned out that major contributors to him had property along the path of the proposed "northern arc). He created an education task force and filled it with his business and political cronies. He punished those that voted against him by getting their projects killed, he created a gerrymanded restricting of the entire state to protect his party--the voters had quiteenough of King Roy. He is now a scummy lawyer in private practice.

The flag had little impact despite the fact he was given a profile in courage award by the eqaully corrupt Kennedy family. If that was the only issue he would have won like every other Democratic since Reconstruction. Zell Miller afterall tried to change the flag too and Guy Millner made the flag the central part of his 1994 Governor race and yet Zell still won.

The flaggots as they are called down here had little influence on the 2002 election of Sonny Purdue or the Republican control of the Georgia Senate and House.

They turned on Sonny when the bill to change the flag again didn't include an option to vote on the 1956 flag--you had just the 2001 and 2003 flags. Sonny easily won reelection in 2006. Shows how much power they had, huh?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 100
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 1:07 PM EST
Predictably disgusting
This is what I posted yesteray on the MKH thread.

"A recent informal survey reveals that 95% of what appears on CNN is intentionally biased in favor of liberals/Democrats and the other 5% are production errors.

The idea that we're going to hear intelligent, fair, questions that will not be designed to ruin Republican candidacies (with the exception of Ron Paul, who is not a Republican anyway) is thoroughly naive."

The questions that were chosen for last night's debate thoroughly confirmed my assessment.

Of particular disgust was the question about gays in the military asked by a Clinton campaign plant that "happened" to be in the audience with a mike so he could complain afterward that none of the candidates had adequately answered his question.

This bogus, planted question and questioner implied blame on the GOP candidates for the existing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, policy that was established by Bill Clinton.

So we have CNN pretending to ask questions from "real" people when in fact they have a Clinton shill planted in the audience for the specific purpose of blaming GOP candidates for an existing policy that was ordered by Mrs. Clinton's own husband.

What other 'unsatisfactory' policies of Mrs. Clinton's husband are liberals going to blame GOP candidates for next?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 101
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 1:07 PM EST
Romney Wins. Big.
Hugh,
Besides yourself, what other Republican commentator agrees with you?
Bing
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 102
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 1:10 PM EST
Winning DEBATE format
Have Fox dedicate 2 hours. Audience to be 65% Conservatives (check their creds this time) and 35% Reagan Democrats (double check their creds).

Hannity gives an introductory 5 minute speech on The 4 Pillars of Reganism. Music groups from his Tour like Greenwood, do a series of Patriotic Numbers.

Rush gives the keynote 7 minute speech on The 4 Pillars of Reganism.

The Top 6-7 Candidates each get 9 minutes on "Why America Needs Another Ronald Reagan".

That has to be the First Sentence in the Speech.
The last sentence has to be "I am that man."

Let's see who can bring the crowd to its feet cheering wildly. That person has a chance of beating Hitlery--IF they are with America on stopping the Mexican Invasion.

Let Hannity's Music Groups do a number between speakers and let Coulter do one liners dissn the Dumbocraps a la the guy on America Idol.

Ratings would be thru the roof.

And their wouldn't be this "I won, no I won" CRAP afterwards. "YOUR" guy would have to prove it on the field.

the big mick
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 103
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 1:10 PM EST
Akagi and Derek
Because of Derick's comments at 10:34 and your lack of other's feelings at 12:40 , you sir are the idiot . Many do think that My Rebel flag might be considered a sign of hate and bigotry . It is you sir that prejudge . I am from North Carolina and I am a rebel . Mitt Romney ...WON BIG
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 104
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 1:15 PM EST
Hewitt the head Kool Aid GuzzlingRomniac
Hugh, "How much does it profit a man if he gains the entire world, but loses his soul?"

You might want to think about that.

You are in very dangerous territory Hugh shilling for Romney. And judging from the comments, your listeners know it.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 105
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 1:16 PM EST
Hitlery Plants
So what are we going to do, let Clintonista News get away with it? This is NO different from Rathergate. EVERYBODY involved in this has to GO DOWN. From the staffer who failed to do a simple Google search to the Producers who failed to impliment a Background Check Policy.

These people should not only be on the unemployment line TODAY, but be BLACKLISTED so they never work in Media again.

This was Dirty Propaganda at its most Joey and Jimmy Goebbels-Carvel like worst.

Are you going to make them pay, or just take it as usual?

the big mick
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 106
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 1:16 PM EST
Sigh.
Bluecollar:

1) "That flag" is not called the Stars and Bars.

2) To compare the Confederate Flag or the Confederate regime to either the Nazis or my friends the Japanese Imperlists is plain stupid. And in case you didn't know, the "Rising Sun" flag is still currently the naval ensign of the naval forces of the Japanese SDF and the national flag at the time is still the national flag and can be seen in the Philippines today in various places like the Japanese Embassy.

Mitt was a total dumba for answering it. How stupid is he?

Few blacks vote in the GOP primaries but many rednecks do. If he is the nominee, few blacks will vote for him (or anyone else under the R label). If he said, "Yeah...I think it's great. I have one in my office on the wall next to my "Jr. #8" poster." (soon to be #88 but that is another topic). I doubt it'd have much impact on the black vote. He could say I think the US should give every black $100,000 and free entry into any college in the US for slavery and they still wouldn't vote for him. Not very smart to anger your friends by trying to pander to your enemies.

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 107
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 1:19 PM EST
What a disappointment
The U-tube debate was a disappointment, but whoever the GOP nominee is will have to go up against Hillary on these types of rigged debates, so they might as well go through with it now and get some experience with it.

I like Duncan Hunter the best for a variety of reasons, some of which came out in the debate: He is pro-life, pro-military, he is a staunch seal-the-border type, and he understands issues of foreign trade. He is also pro-2nd amendment.

However, I may end up voting for Romney as the least of all evils since by the time I vote, Hunter may have dropped out. I think Huckabee is charismatic, but I am not sure he can beat Hillary. I think Rudy and McCain can both beat Hillary, but I have issues with both of them. Romney, despite his flip-flopping, has at least flipped to the right side, he has a track record in the business world, and last night he showed he could at least hold his own under fire.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 108
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 1:20 PM EST
Huckabee won, hands down..
But it doesn't mean I support him. I will look at him closer however now and see if he makes the grade.

If a candidate is a member of the CFR, a liar, pro abortion, pro gun control, pro homosexual, pro open borders, pro amnesty and all what was once known as the other sides agenda, I will not vote for them.

Unfortunately for me and the rest of the American people, because of the above, we are a losing party in 2008, if the front runners win the nomination of our party. We have become the extremests of what was once known as the far left, or we have moved so far to the right, that God and christian values are no longer wanted in our republican party. America wants God back in our country, and we don't offer that with our front runners.

In some freaky way, we have become what we once despised. The party may just be dead and as our numbers dwindle and the public holds us in distrust, if not disgust, we turn around and offer the likes of Rudy and Romney?

Not too long ago, we as a party were handed the sacred trust of the people, in congress, the senate, the presidency and we blew it. We became the enemy of the republic, for which we stood and relished in our abuse of power. Even to this day, we stil hold our heads high and snear down at the ignorant masses and those masses know it.

Why else is Paul surging in the poles and contributions from the little people are flooding his campaign? It's the message stupid!! He stands for everything our party once believed and espoused. Thats how we won all three bodies not too long ago. I haven't forgotten that and niether has the public. Calling him a kook, is the absolute worst thing we can do, as a party.

D-Day is coming rapidly and all I know, is I will not relinquish my principles and vote for the likes of Mitt or Rudy. But I am still undecided in this primary as may be the case for many of us.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 109
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 1:25 PM EST
Akagi
I appreciate your insights into the history of the flag. Civil war isn't my war. I read Killer Angels and really appreciated the perspective it gave to the southern leadership. Wonderful men frankly. I think Lee was a great man (Somewhat crippled in his tactical viewpoint, but that's probably another discussion).

My point is just this: While you could argue about the history of that flag, it's contemporary significance is what it is - and that's bad man, it is. People associate the most divisive war of our history with that flag, and they associate slavery with it (right or wrong).

I don't think it's a great symbol for our country. Old Glory is.

I think Mitt gave a good answer to a somewhat "gotcha" question ("Hey, let's get these guys to alienate the South! Here's a great question...")

Do you get where I'm coming from?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 110
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 1:25 PM EST
Idiots continue
Chuck:

I don't care how people feel. If a person gets their feelings hurt over a piece of cloth dyed in various shades they have bigger problems and perhaps that person should seek professional help.

If you don't like someone flying "The Confederate Flag," go and fly the ANC flag then or the PAC flag or whatever flag you want.

And I don't care if people "think" this or "believe" that. If they think the "Rebel flag" is a sign of bigotry and hate, let em. You have a right to be stupid.

There is a car dealership that on US 41 is flying the PRC flag--a flag I don't care for really, but not going to get upset over it.

It is the only flag that is flown there--strange.

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 111
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 1:29 PM EST
Akagi
So you're saying that Romney should have been dishonest about his feelings for the confederate flag for political expediency, in other words - Clintonesque?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 112
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 1:37 PM EST
Past and Future
A people unwilling to defend their past and their ancestors are doomed to be enslaved or destroyed in the future. The Left despises America's past, generally almost everything pre-1960. It is sad to know that many who call themselves conservative hate America's past as well.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 113
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 1:42 PM EST
Romney wins? No Way. Huckabee won.
I firmly believe Huckabee was the clear debate winner. Even though I'm a Rudy supporter - because I must vote for the "horse" that can win the race - I am continually impressed with Governor Huckabee.

Hugh, I can understand your unwavering support for Governor Romney, but don't tell us he won the debate when he clearly didn't. Recall the question about his previous support for gays and lesbians serving openly in the military? Romney was petrified and frozen. He's not a contender.

Omegaman
Phoenix, AZ

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 114
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 1:46 PM EST
missed the point
Akagi:
Not the Stars and Bars? You need to do a litle more research. The Battle flag of the south was called the Stars and Bars back in the day. However, I was not trying to be historically correct. Trying to deny that the Confederate Flag does not bring to mind images of hatred and slavery or that Black America should not have issues with it is simply ignorant. Does not matter what other issues the War between the States was fought over, slavery was one of the issues. We can debate that all day long however. Slavery is not one of the issues this election nor is the Confederate flag. I am not going to vote for someone because of thier opinion of the Confederate Flag. I will vote for someone based on thier opinion of the American Flag. Why? Because the USA exists, The CSA does not.
Lets get the debate on track with issues important today not on issues important over 100 years ago.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 115
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 1:49 PM EST
Republican Bias
I'm listening to Rush Limbaugh now...who HAS NOT declared who he would endorse....unlike all the other Republican pundits who are making favorable commentary on "their" respective choices - hence your viewpoints are slanted...Rush gives unbiased opinion on it...as an example Rush just played the Rudy/Mitt dust-up and it came off totally different then those in the Mitt camp - the Mitt camp & supporters keep "whining" about the low blow - Rush felt it was appropriate and powerful.
Not that you should not have your opinion...but if I want real insights - Rush Limbaugh is the best! He blows you all out of the water for untainted commentary about the Republican candidates. So with that said, I will listen to Rush for the opinion. Republican pundits, except for Rush are about as useless as CNN.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 116
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 1:53 PM EST
Romney?
Although Romney is a extremly smart individual and is a viable choice he still has not proven he can be pesident. As a matter of opinion he comes across as to much of a car salesman.When he knows he has a 30 or 90 second response time it seems his brain clutters with to much information meaning he thinks in terms of selling his idea instead of clearly presenting a thought or belief. That to me is a sign of a career politician and is something I think the country doesnt need anymore of. The only canidates who listen to the question and answer based on conviction are Mcain and Huckaby. That is what I personally consider when I am deciding to support....And so far it is Mcain although I am not in agreement with everything he stands for I do think he clearly has the most qualities a LEADER should have. Romney when he has the time to give a detailed speach he is impressive but as the leader of the free world you wont always have time to carefully think about your response, sometimes you will have to think on the fly and in that regard Romney fails.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 117
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 2:20 PM EST
The more I see of Romney..
...the less I like him.

Slick, sure. He's slick. He plays well. But I don't trust him.

Simple fact: he was the Governor of a liberal state (where I happen to live at the moment) and he governed as a liberal. The policies he implemented were liberal policies.

Now, I know that Rudy Giuliani holds unacceptable positions on gun ownership and abortion. But Giuliani governed a liberal city that's larger than most states, and he governed as a CONSERVATIVE. His policies were conservative policies. What's more, he consistently and effectively told leftist loons where to get off, and let nobody claim victimhood who was in fact responsible for their own situation. This guy is tough.

Occam's Razor to the contrary, I'm willing to grant Romney the possibility that he actually changed his mind (at a strangely convenient moment for his electoral chances, but stranger things have happened.) But the rest of his talk about conservative policy choices, I find simply unconvincing.

I'll vote for Romney when I can quit MassHealth and not be in violation of the law. Yep, I'm FORCED to buy health insurance, even if I don't want it. Yep, that was Romney's doing.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 118
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 2:29 PM EST
Flags
The Confederate Battle Flag was not called the Stars and Bars "back in the day." That term refers to the First National Flag of the Confederacy which was the national flag until it was replaced by the Second National Flag in May of 1863.


And Pancho, if Romney feels that way he is an idiot. My guess he was pandering to people that will never vote for him.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 119
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 2:32 PM EST
Stars and Bars
"Stars and Bars" is a synonym for "Stars and Stripes." (See the resemblance between "bars" and stripes?")

The "Stars and Bars" is a nickname for the OFFICIAL AMERICAN FLAG, also known as "Old Glory," not for the flag of the Confederacy.

There was a Confederate flag called "Stars and Bars". It was designed like the official American flag, with 7 stars in a circular pattern on a field of blue in the upper left corner, and three broad stripes alternating red and white covering the rest of the flag.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_Confederate_State s_of_America

The X-figure flag we know as "the Confederate Flag," "the Rebel Flag," or "the Dixie Flag," was never known as the "Stars and Bars."

Get a clue, folks.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 120
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 2:35 PM EST
Gator23
Rush also declared that Thompson was the only conservative on the stage. That's a pretty strong endorsement which I happen to agree with. The media are keeping Rudy and Mitt ahead in everyone's minds in case Hillary loses. At least then they get a RINO. Conservatives who vote for one of those two RINOs are no conservatives. We keep electing them and then whine when they eventually start acting like liberals.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 121
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 2:36 PM EST
What debate to Hugh watch?
By far the most notable thing about the debate was that Romney got creamed. He dodged more questions than anybody, and not well. He was exposed as the Hillary Clinton of the Republican party (but better looking), sticking his finger in the wind and saying whatever he thought voters wanted to hear. He stands for nothing but political ambition.

To a lesser extent, that could be said of everybody on the state except Paul, Thompson and Tancredo. Those guys are on a mission to improve the country. Too bad Thompson doesn't advocate any real change. Only Paul and Tancredo pay more than lip service to small government.

I hope conservatives rally around Paul. We have to get our own house in order before we can win he war on terror. You can't fight wars when you're broke and your country is divided by titanic government, as Walter Williams explained in his essay yesterday.

http://freedomistheanswer.blogspot.com/
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 122
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 2:41 PM EST
Ron Paul wins again
Of course, Ron Paul wins the post debate polling again. Who else could win other than Ron Paul? Ron Paul's standing as the champion of the debates is becoming automatic, it's spontaneous. Ron Paul's honesty and integrity has become ubiquitous. Even though CNN limits his input, Ron Paul still wins. Ron Paul could stand on the stage and not say a single word the entire debate and still win the post debate polling just on the fact of his long established principles of freedom, integrity, and honesty.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 123
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 2:45 PM EST
Flags
Dr._B:

What Romney have said was this "People should feel free to fly whatever flag they wish and as for flying it as part of a state flag or on state property, that should be up to the people of that state to decide."

In 2001, that crook now rotting in prison, Bernard Ebbers, former CEO of WorldCom funded a campaign to remove the Confederate Battle Flag from the state flag--which had been part of the state flag since the 1890s. It lost badly. 30% of blacks even voted against the change.

The US flag is also used by very bad men--ever see a Klan rally not carrying the US flag and many awful events in history were under the banner of the US colors, should it be banned too?

As for tactics, Lee was no Jackson or Cleburne, but he was better than anything the Union had to offer. Grant couldn't carry Lee's jockstrap to borrow a phrase from a different era. What Grant did do was accept horrific amounts of casualties. There was a reason he was called Grant the Butcher and it didn't reference his killing of Confederate troops.

Look at the numbers he piled up at Battle of Spotsylvania Court House, or Cold Harbor or the Wilderness. What made Grant different from McClellen, Burnside or Meade was the continued engagement of Lee even as he piled up casualties like cordwood, because he knew he could replace his losses, Lee could not. So what if he lost 13,000 at Cold Harbor to Lee's 2500. He could replace his 13,000, Lee couldn't replace his 2500. In this vien, he was like Stalin.

Grant was an average commander, but being average was better than most in the Union. He was probably the worst president to ever reside in the Executive Mansion though.

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 124
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 2:49 PM EST
You are right Akagi
in your history of the flag. Now that that issue is over, How about commenting on the real issues at hand.
1) War on Terror - The war affects everyone living in America legal or not.
2) Economy - The economy affects eveyone living in America legal or not
3) Illegal Aliens - Affects the 2 issues listed above and All legal residence in America.

Time to use your brain on something that matters.
It is good for us to hear all that there is to hear from all the candidates, but it is also time to narrow the field down. The question I would really like you to answer is: Will you support your party if your candidate does not win the nomination?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 125
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 2:56 PM EST
On Gays and Torture.


McCain stated his views on water torture, in front of the world. He has experience, he must also be aware of when it is appropriate to discuss these matters in public. Mccain loves the military, true, but does he actually believe that he can do whatever the hell he wants in all things pertaining to the military without talking to military leaders because he was a POW? Cranky and Pushy.

Romney didnt want to discuss torture in front of the world, but with military leaders who know more about it. He obviously is aware that there is a war going on and a youtube debate is not the forum to discuss torture.

Gays
I personally am aware that there are gays in the military. There is definately more lesbians than gays. Immorality is rampant in the military and sexual vulgarity and promiscuity is rampant at basic training and advanced training.

To me it is very hypocritical of the armed forces to not allow gays and lesbians to be open while at the same time condoning lewd talk and behavior by straight servicemen and women.

I think gays and lesbians ahould be allowed to serve. I dont need to hear about their sexual preference. I also dont need to hear about the sexual exploits of straight enlisted servicemen and women.

The Army value of Morality is not adhered to, it's taught tounge and cheek, as a "have to say it", and is followed up with locations all around the world to get satisfied sexually and what your girlfriend or wife doesnt know wont hurt them.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 126
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 2:59 PM EST
Gosh, Hugh
K-Lo has been writing mash notes to Romney for at least a year now. And you use her blog comments as the main "evidence" of a butt-kicking performance by Romney in the debate?

You know, I'm not nearly as interested in how hard a candidate "hits back" as in his record, beliefs, and character. I think Giuliani would make with the witticisms and soundbites better than any of the other candidates, in the project of showing up Hillary for a statist prig -- but that doesn't convince me he would be the best president.

Neither does one evening of Mitt "hitting back" at Rudy convince me that HE would be.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 127
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 3:00 PM EST
And no
Pancho:

I wouldn't say Mitt is Clinton-like, but like Gore--meaning he changes his opinions depending on what office he is seeking.

Remember Gore's 1988 "Throughout most of my life, I've raised tobacco. I want you to know that with my own hands, all of my life, I put it in the plant beds and transferred it. I've hoed it. I've chopped it. I've shredded it, spiked it, put it in the barn and stripped it and sold it." This was in North Carolina but later in 1996 he said this:

"I knelt by her bed and held her hand. And in a very short time her breathing became labored and then she breathed her last breath. And that is why until I draw my last breath, I will pour my heart and soul into the cause of protecting our children from the dangers of smoking."

When asked about the contradiction since she (his sister)died in 1984, he said he "felt a numbness" after his sister's death that made it hard to translate her illness into personal and policy decisions. "It takes time to fully absorb the most important lessons in life,"

Sounds like Mitt to me.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 128
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 3:03 PM EST
no thanks, thebigmick...
From your post at 1:10 PM...

We don't need Hannity or Rush gumming up the works. Both are hypocrites, IMO. Sean has sold out bigtime on foreign policy, and his pandering to Rudy (a self-professed liberal gun-grabber, pro-abortionist, etc.) is ridiculous. And we don't need a certified illegal drug addict either... although Rush wouldn't be as offensive as Hannity.

Another problem, mick, is that Reagan did give amnesty to many millions of illegal immigrants, so the most Reagan-esque candidate would have to part with RWR on that issue (and rightfully so).

And btw, mick - Reagan pulled out of the Middle East once he realized how crazy it would have been to get bogged down in a quagmire in Lebanon in 1983. Do you support that policy? There's only one candidate preaching Reagan's non-interventionist policy in the irrational Middle East now... but something tells me that someone so Hannitized wouldn't support Ron Paul... who most closely resembles a return to Reagan if you look at policy. In fact, Ron Paul was one of very few Republicans to endorse Reagan in his 1976 run for president.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 129
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 3:05 PM EST
My party
Bluecollar:

The GOP is not my party nor is Democratic Party. Or any other American Party. If I had to say any party is "My party" in the world it'd be the TSU followed by the DPP. Would I vote for Romney if he got the nomination? Perhaps, but probably would vote LP in that case.





Flag as Offensive

Reply # 130
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 3:07 PM EST
johnlemski
"I meant to say Huckabee was the winner, not Tancredo."


Wow, well gee that's an understandable mistake, considering how similar their views are ha ha.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 131
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 3:14 PM EST
Subjective
Obviously everyone is going to have a different view as to who won the debate, and we could ask all sorts of people and try to get a consensus, but it's just not going to happen. I thought I would see your typical headlines that Guilliani won, or maybe even Huckabee, but all those I have spoken with said Romney. I think this is the case because they didn't necessarily look at the fluidity of his responses, but looked at the substance.

People bring up the Bible question and the gay question to show his weakness or failure, but they were honest. And his response for abortion is as clear and acceptible as we could hope from any candidate. We certainly can't expect someone to have the same views their whole lives, thereby denying them the potential for growth.

As to the Bible question, Romney responded that he believe the Bible "to be the word of God". That should have been sufficient. We all know there are different translations and different interpretations and he wasn't as smooth as he could have been when saying essentially this. But if you look at it, that is what he said, and it was pretty clear.

As to the gays in the military, again, he was choppy in his speach, but when you look at the substance you cannot say he was unclear. He said he did believe that the he never thought the "do not tell" policy would work (by which we can insinuate that he thought it would have just been better to let them serve), but that now he thinks we need to listen to those who know best, those who work with the miliatary and lead the military. McCain gave essentially the same response but did say it in a less jumbled manner. So what if someone gets a little shaky or doesn't say something as fluid as we like, but we must look at the substance.

Now, if you don't like the substance of what Romney stands for you can certainly choose not to back him, but if you take the time to look you can know what he believes, now.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 132
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 3:15 PM EST
What? Me no Speak e the English
Funny accents?

What does that mean. Guess what? Lots of people have funny accents--some of which are born in the US.

If you starting asking immigration questions based on accents, expect a complaint and investigation from the DOJ and EEOC.

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 133
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 3:16 PM EST
Giuliani

I am puzzled by the apparent desperation on the part of Giuliani.

Claiming Romney is soft on illegal immigration because he doesn't demand to see the employment records of a contractor he hires? (I wonder whether an employer is even legally ALLOWED to divulge such documents?

Those in the pro-enforcement movement will be well aware that this same sort of slimy tactic was used by some rich radical leftist Democrats against Tom Tancredo a couple of years back.


That's Giuliani's big problem on illegal immigration. He and his flunkies can lie all they want, but the fact is that those who have been in the trenches as activists in the immigration enforcment movement know that Giuliani is an open-borders guy. So is Huckabee.

They can lie all they want but those with credibility on the issue know what they are really about and it is our job to expose these phonies.

As to Romney, immigration enforcement advocates differ whether he is a bona fide anti-illegal immigration advocate or not.

What I believe there is a strong consensus on, however, is that he does not have the history of being an illegal immigration cheerleader like Giuliani and Huckabee.

So some enforcement advocates would contend that Romney is unacceptable as well. Others think he has shown enough credibility on the issue to have earned their vote. (knowing that the true believers in enforcing the immigration laws, Hunter and Tancredo, are not going to win)


But what all enforcement advocates who have been involved in this issue for some time would agree on is that Giuliani and Huckabee are both on the side of the enemy, the Ted Kennedy side.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 134
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 3:17 PM EST
Which Debate Was That?
We must have been watching different debates. I don't even think Romney finished in the Top 5.

However, the biggest losers of the night was that focus group who didn't know the candidates names and couldn't articulate why they felt the way they did.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 135
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 3:25 PM EST
Actually
As originally a Tancredo supporter and having switched to Romney, I wonder whether Tancredo is upset by Giuliani using the same slimeball tactic about the "contractor who supposedly hired illegal aliens" that was used by these wealthy leftist extremists in Colorado against him.

I would like to see Tancredo call Giuliani to task for that. That would also help make it clear that Giuliani is no friend of those of us who want an orderly and well-regulated immigration system.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 136
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 3:28 PM EST
RUDY'S LATEST VIDEO
I think it is new, at least I just saw it for the first time. Again, he is dressed in drag, lipstick, rouge, the works, talking with Donald Trump. I don't care what the cause or charity or whatever, it was pure stupidity to do this and this man can NEVER, I repeat, NEVER win the presidency. Hillary just can't wait to put those pics of him all over the media. JUST CAN'T WAIT!

By the way, what Romney said about changing his mind or making a mistake is right. Millions of American's, myself included thought, at least for a while, that it was okay to have illegals doing "those jobs." But now I see the potential damage and realize this can become a national nightmare with our sovereignty on the line. Are you saying Romney couldn't have made the same mistake?

Wake up America! Giuliani cannot beat Hillary. I don't care how much you like and respect him, HE CANNOT WIN! It's time to pick a new candidate.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 137
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 3:43 PM EST
Romney did great . . .
Biggest Loser?

A tie between Ted Turner and Rudy Giuliani.

Giuliani looked like he was going to cry when Mitt rapped him over the knuckles.

Biggest winners?

A tie between Mitt Romney and Fox News.

---

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 138
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 3:47 PM EST
by the way . . .
you have to watch that exchange btw. mitt and rudy again. it's hysterical. rudy looks like he's about to soil himself. it's like the wheels in his head are spinning "this is not how i planned it, this is not how i planned it, this is not how i planned it"

his voice actually starts trembling as he's staring at his notes trying to think of something to say.

and all he can come up with is "mitt, you come in here holier than thou"

i almost spit my drink out.

mitt mopped him up. i thought rudy was supposed to be the tough guy. but he got smacked down hard. he won't recover from that. his toughness was all he had going for him. and so-called-"slick" mitt just used him as a mop.

go Mitt.

and if i have to listen to any more substance-less stupid soundbytes from Mike Huckleberry, I think I'm going to scream. The guy is a pro-life Bill Clinton, but might be a little less free-market and more tax-hungry than Bill . . .
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 139
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 3:50 PM EST
Romney Won
Whether he won or not, Romney is the most articulate, intelligent candidate.

He's the only one talking about the importance of values.

He's the only one talking about the economic threat from China and India.

He's the only one talking about marriage before kids.

He's the only one who supports the marriage amendment.

Everyone else is same old same old.

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 140
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 3:57 PM EST
bot_feeder
"bot_feeder writes: Thursday, November, 29, 2007 3:07 PM
johnlemski
"I meant to say Huckabee was the winner, not Tancredo."Wow, well gee that's an understandable mistake, considering how similar their views are ha ha."

Thanks for noticing!! Thought it was funny myself. LOL

What does " bot_feeder" mean anyways?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 141
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 4:22 PM EST
big mick
Re: Clinton plant.

As usual the GOP RINOs will bend over and take it in the shorts when they should stand up and denounce CNN for the partisan shills they are.

What really disgusts me is that at this point in the campaign these so-called debates (which are not really debates by any logical definition of the word) are supposed to be about Democrats choosing their candidates and Republicans choosing ours. Instead CNN gives us a so-called "debate" whose main purpose was to let liberals take cheap shots at Republicans that none of the questioners were going to vote for no matter what kind of answers they got.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 142
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 4:54 PM EST
Sanctuary Mansion for Ron
To Ron:
"Romney was being petty and condescending with the, “funny accent”, interjection."

Well done, Romney. He was not nearly as condescending as Rudy tried to be...Romney shoved it back down Rudy's throat, and Fred shoved it down some more later on. Bravo to both!!!

"When Romney heard the “funny accent” why did not he suspect the possibility of illegal immigrants and check who the contractor was employing?"

Romney did...and it resulted in Romney dropping that lawn service company later on.

"You are splitting hairs with legalistic definitions in your defense of Romney and distracting from my idea that Romney was ultimately responsible for the use of the illegal immigrants."

I proved that Romney answered the question with 100% truthfulness and accuracy. The ultimate responsibility for hiring illegals lies on the employer - not the customer. Romney was the customer - and he was very Presidential in making this point.

"If everything was so clear and truthful, why did Romney run to the Bill Bennet Show the next morning to buttress his response?"

Romney was already scheduled to be on the Bill Bennett show...this wasn't a last minute effort to fix things. The question came up during the show...Romney addressed it. C'mon Ron - you are smarter than this.

"Why did he try to intimidate Giuliani with the “un-American” nonsense defense of his reason for not checking the immigration status of the workers?"

This was the best way to shove a non-issue down Rudy's throat for Rudy's repeated baseless attacks on Romney. Well Done Mitt!!!
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 143
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 4:55 PM EST
COLOSSUS ANALYZES DEBATE

...Tancredo ...One issue (Border Security) ...no money or organization ...no chance at nomination ...

...Hunter ...Good on National Defense and illegal immigration ...comes across as dour and humorless ...does not have Hucabee charm or speaking ability ...possible choice for VP ...

...McCain ...sealed his fate with McCain-Feingold and Amnesty ...no chance at nomination ...

...Paul ...gave best answers on Conservatism ...CNN tried to set him up as a conspiracy kook ...hurts himself with perception that he would withdraw from Iraq before victory is secured ...no chance in '08 ...

...Thompson ...good answers and no mistakes ...hurt himself badly by waiting so long to enter race ...many minds were made up before Thompson committed ...would be excellent choice for VP ...

.....Huckabee ...quick on his feet ...good speaker combining Southern charm with sincerity and high likability factor ...comes off as GW on steroids about immigration ...America is not ready for another Compassionate Conservative in the White House ...will fade fast after Iowa ...no chance ...

.....Giulani ...danced around his Liberal record ...had trouble holding his temper under Romneys attacks ...could not use his humor and engaging smile ...chance to win nomination if Conservative vote is split in the Primaries ...chance to win and beat Hillary 50/50 ...

.....Romney ...muffed several oppertunities to score points ...not quick on his feet ...needs to ponder and deliberate over answers ...had the look of a deer in the headlights on Bible and Confederate Flag answers ...might lose some Southern votes on Flag answer ...chance to win nomination if Rudy tanks in the Primaries ...must do better in debates with Hillary to win Presidency ...

.....Continued part two summary .....COLOSSUS
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 144
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 5:06 PM EST
Wow - Even Jim Geraghty Agrees
"I Take It Giuliani Checks the Papers of His Waiters and Busboys.

I've been pretty rough on Mitt Romney lately, so I'll take a moment to blow the whistle on one of the shots at him last night.

Giuliani: If you're going to take this holier than thou attitude, that your whole approach to immigration...

Romney: I'm sorry, immigration is not holier than thou, Mayor. It's the law.

Giuliani: If you're going to take this holier than thou attitude that you are perfect on immigration...

Romney: I'm not perfect.

Giuliani: ... it just happens you have a special immigration problem that nobody else up here has. You were employing illegal immigrants. That is a pretty serious thing. They were under your nose.

So, Mr. Mayor, you've never eaten in a restaurant that has employed an illegal immigrant in the kitchen or as a waiter or busboy? In New York City? For eight years?

I think that's very comparable to Romney hiring a company that employed illegal aliens to do its work. In both cases, the customer is giving money to a company that turns around and gives money to an illegal immigrant for his or her labor. If Giuliani wants to call that "employing" illegal immigrants, how certain can the former mayor be that he himself doesn't have that "special immigration problem"?"

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDIzMGEyNzQ 3OTMwYmM4OWRkOTYzNjcyMzBlNDc1ZTI=



Flag as Offensive

Reply # 145
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 5:12 PM EST
Rankings
1 (Tie) Romney: Romney need not concern himself with candidates outside of the 2-man race - he needed to go after Giuliani and he did. Giuliani looked like a bafoon...which was exactly what Romney needed. (Especially in Florida.)

1 (Tie) Fred: Fred's responses were right on point. The timing of his shot at Rudy's hypocrisy over "regretting who you hire" could have been better, but Fred certainly nailed every one of his questions. He is the most concise and to-the-point of all candidates - I like that.

2. McCain: McCain's answers were patriotic, American, and worthy of applause. His attack on Mitt seemed a little misguided (since Mitt's answer was that he would consider the opinion of experts like McCain before making a decision on interrogation issues.) McCain is out of the race as far as I'm concerned, but for the most part - I liked his answers.

3. Huck: Huck nailed his bible question (I should hope an ordained minister can handle that one.) Other than illegal immigration (which Huck does not want to stand out on) he didn't stand out on anything else. I don't care how well he articulates his position on illegal immigration, he is wrong. He reponse proves how far out of line he really is with the GOP base, and Huck shouldn't have let that cat out of the bag if he wanted to win the nod.

4. Rudy: Rudy was flustered, angry, and it was obvious. He was off-base on his facts; Mitt pounced on Rudy's screw-up of the facts man-handled him sharply, but without being mean. Mitt was very presidential - Rudy was quite the opposite.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 146
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 5:23 PM EST
COLOSSUS DEBATE SUMMARY

.....Based on their performances in this one debate Thompson and Paul showed best ...

.....Thompson is too laid back to recover from his late entry into the race but he should have been the candidate that Conservatives said they wanted to go up against Hillary ...

.....Paul gets second choice ...his Conservative credentials are impeccable but he needs to allow the troops in Iraq secure victory first before he pulls them out ...Conservatives don't want another Vietnam ...

.....Either Thompson or Paul would make an excellent President for the GOP ...but at this stage of the game they are longshots ...

.....Republicans made a mistake agreeing to a youtube debate on CNN ...it was a set-up to make the Republicans look like homophobes, red-neck gun lovers, religious bigots, and conspiracy kooks ...the questions were staged by Democrat plants to embarrass the GOP ...they were playing agaist the house and a marked deck ...

.....70% of all Americans are dead set against amnesty and want illegal immigration to be stopped ...this is an across the board sentiment and includes many moderates and Democrats ...It is unlikely that the Dems and Hillary will come out directly against amnesty so it should be a winning issue for the GOP Nominee if he has the guts to mount that steed and ride it to victory .....COLOSSUS
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 147
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 5:23 PM EST
Ha
Ahhh... Mr. Hugh (The Best Thing We Can Do Is Get Rid Of Chaffee) Hewitt thinks people care about his political judgment. Rah! Rah! Romney!... straight to defeat.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 148
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 5:24 PM EST
Shoving Romney and Giuliani down the
throats of the American people seems to be the agenda of all the media, mainstream and alternative.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 149
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 5:30 PM EST
Romney is a class act.

Romney is a class act. By your fruits you'll know them..... His kids love him and swear by the Dad. People that have done business with the guy are inspired by him. The people of Utah(including some democrats) love him for saving olympic games.

Rudy kids don't even want to be in the same room with him. Mike Huckaberry is like a Prolife Clinton. !!! LOL Holy Crap thats so funny, I almost spit my drink out too Drex Davis. Nice one.

TAX HIKE MIKE. I didn't hear one thing he wasn't for spending money on , holy crap..... Space program, Yep. Tution breaks for illegals, YEP.

Gosh he even talks like Clinton. It's time to rallying around Romney guys.

Scott Taylor
Chandler, Arizona
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 150
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 5:35 PM EST
Solve Problems = Mitt Romney

Who will solve the problems = Mitt Romney.

Period, end of debate.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 151
Date: Nov 29, 2007 - 5:47 PM EST
The People of Utah Love Romney?
Speaking as a politically involved, life-long Salt Laker, I'd disagree. But it's good that his kids like him, I suppose.

Were each candidate given 60 uninterrupted minutes to expound his view, Ron Paul's poll numbers would triple overnight. Having rightly diagnosed the vast majority of America's ills (mounting debt, collapsing currency, illegal immigration, gutting of the manufacturing base, etc.) as the inevitable products of a dishonest monetary system, Dr. Paul could prescribe a better cure than those vying against him. A central bank that issues an interest-bearing debt as currency and the income tax that supports it are unfit for a free people.

Our World Cop mentality does far more to isolate (and bankrupt) us than peaceful trade and diplomacy.

And why is it that the libertarian-leaning Texan has received more military contributions than any other candidate? A lack of patriotism among our fighting forces? Does a surrender mentality pervade those in uniform?