SC Rep. Debate

Of those out there that paid attention to the debate tonight, what were your impressions?
1. Who do you think came across as the most sincere?
2. Who had the worst night?
3. Who did you see as the emerging top 5?
4. Who surprised you? (pleasantly or in disgust)
5. What did you think of the questions?
6. Did you watch the follow up interviews by Hannity and Colmes?
7. Any other thoughts.


1. Tanecredo Col
2. Tommy Thompson Wisc
3. McCain, Tanecredo, Giuliani, Huckabee, Romney
4. Tanecredo (pleasantly)
5. Fairly tough questions, made the candidates address some of their records.
6. Yes, very nice interviews and engaging.
7. McCain is sharp for his age, but I really think he's starting to show his age. physically. Presidency may just kill him.

I only got the highlights this morning on NPR, but I am curious as to how others think the candidates did. I am particularly curious on Romney, I heard a couple quips from him that werent to shabby.

I am hoping one of these guys emerges from the pack, otherwise I am leaning toward Biden at this point but like a lot of moderates out there Im craving a conservative who wants to come back a little bit to the left.

everyone lost, becaus they are not real debates. hey havent been real debates in two decades, they are party-organized, media-fueled romps of pre panned questions and they are GAY

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

everyone lost, becaus they are not real debates. hey havent been real debates in two decades, they are party-organized, media-fueled romps of pre panned questions and they are GAY

---

Really? so you think they show a merry lively mood? :laugh4:

i suppose u could say that. anymore, it serves a candidate just as much not to participate in debate becausr they are not real debates (think gore and thompson)

anymore, your standing in the polls affects your ability to be included in the debates.

it should be the other way around

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus

Of those out there that paid attention to the debate tonight, what were your impressions?

---

Here is a compilation of the National Review Symposium on the Debate/Press Conference: National Review Symposium Reviews

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

I only got the highlights this morning on NPR, but I am curious as to how others think the candidates did. I am particularly curious on Romney, I heard a couple quips from him that werent to shabby.

---

I think Giuliani had the best night. If the consensus was Romney won the first debate, Giuliani won this second round. Romney was fine. McCain was better than in round one. Over all, the top three put distance between themselves from the lower rungs. One reason for this was the lower rungs were either incompetent or failed to capture their brief moment before slipping back into obscurity. Ron Paul is insane. Tancredo and Gilmore were cartoonish. The others..."what were their names?" will be a common reaction.

You can note the National Review link in the post above on pundits impressions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

I think Giuliani had the best night. If the consensus was Romney won the first debate, Giuliani won this second round. Romney was fine. McCain was better than in round one. Over all, the top three put distance between themselves from the lower rungs. One reason for this was the lower rungs were either incompetent or failed to capture their brief moment before slipping back into obscurity. Ron Paul is insane. Tancredo and Gilmore were cartoonish. The others..."what were their names?" will be a common reaction.

You can note the National Review link in the post above on pundits impressions.

---

Thanks pindar much appreciated. Intresting commentary from Charen on McCain "McCain was fine on spending of course. But he did not do himself any favors in the discussion of campaign finance, nor in his invocation of bipartisanship on immigration" Frankly working with Dems is going to be a reality for the next president, I dont necessarily view it as a weaknees, but understand its in the context of a republican primary.

It also sounds like (well others think it sounds like) Giuliani is formulating his position on abortion more clearly, I thought (and still do) that that issue, along with his personal life might be his achillies heel.

Im still holding out for Mitt, as my govenor he did a decent job with a crap hand of cards, massachusetts has to be the hardest place in the US to move forward a conservative adgenda. I was a McCain guy before this all began but I just get the feeling he's going down with the Bush ship, and his endorsement of the "surge" is going to bite him in the rear down the road.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

I think Giuliani had the best night. If the consensus was Romney won the first debate, Giuliani won this second round. Romney was fine. McCain was better than in round one. Over all, the top three put distance between themselves from the lower rungs. One reason for this was the lower rungs were either incompetent or failed to capture their brief moment before slipping back into obscurity. Ron Paul is insane. Tancredo and Gilmore were cartoonish. The others..."what were their names?" will be a common reaction.

---

Of course he is insane, he ran as the Libertarian candidate in 1988. I think insanity is one of the main criteria for that nomination. ~D

Looking at his voting record, I definitely like him the best. He definitely old-school Republican-Libertarian, limited government, etc. Voted against the Iraq war, against the PATRIOT Act, and wants to disband the IRS. What's not to like? His 9/11 statement could have been worded better, but he is essentially correct. The MSM is trying to sideline him, which means he must be doing something right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

Thanks pindar much appreciated. Intresting commentary from Charen on McCain "McCain was fine on spending of course. But he did not do himself any favors in the discussion of campaign finance, nor in his invocation of bipartisanship on immigration" Frankly working with Dems is going to be a reality for the next president, I dont necessarily view it as a weaknees, but understand its in the context of a republican primary.

It also sounds like (well others think it sounds like) Giuliani is formulating his position on abortion more clearly, I thought (and still do) that that issue, along with his personal life might be his achillies heel.

Im still holding out for Mitt, as my govenor he did a decent job with a crap hand of cards, massachusetts has to be the hardest place in the US to move forward a conservative adgenda. I was a McCain guy before this all began but I just get the feeling he's going down with the Bush ship, and his endorsement of the "surge" is going to bite him in the rear down the road.

---

Things are still in the forming stage. Even so...

I dislike McCain. I hope he doesn't get the nomination. McCain-Feingold is evil. It looks like with politicos the McCain Campaign is slowly imploding.

Giuliani is the man to beat. Romney will be trying a repeat of the Jimmy Cater 1976 playbook. He is focusing on the early primary states and ignoring national polls. If he wins one or two, say New Hampshire and Iowa and/or places strong in South Carolina then he will trampoline into major contender status. Romney's war chest is vast. This gives him staying power. If I recall correctly, his first quarter monies raised were all designated for the Primaries. This was unique for all the candidates (from both Parties). This means he can go back to the same sponsors later for the general election.

None of the lower rung fellows are tenable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Things are still in the forming stage. Even so...

I dislike McCain. I hope he doesn't get the nomination. McCain-Feingold is evil. It looks like with politicos the McCain Campaign is slowly imploding.

Giuliani is the man to beat. Romney will be trying a repeat of the Jimmy Cater 1976 playbook. He is focusing on the early primary states and ignoring national polls. If he wins one or two, say New Hampshire and Iowa and/or places strong in South Carolina then he will trampoline into major contender status. Romney's war chest is vast. This gives him staying power. If I recall correctly, his first quarter monies raised were all designated for the Primaries. This was unique for all the candidates (from both Parties). This means he can go back to the same sponsors later for the general election.

None of the lower rung fellows are tenable.

---

Good analysis, I suspect Romney is playing for 2nd to be blunt, although if Giuliani does get the nod, an all east coast ticket would be a disaster. Romney is definately the potential spoiler at this point, he ought to do okay in NH (if not win it) and by default that ought to carry him to a repectable 3rd in SC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Tancredo and Gilmore were cartoonish.

---

You really found Tancredo cartoonish? He's been hitting Iowa pretty hard lately more so than most candidates and I'd have to say that he translated well to the debate. His ideas about how to handle illegal immigration were nice to see mentioned on a national stage. He was candid, but not cartoonish imo.

Tancredo and others regularly appears on Steve Deace's show, "Days in the Afternoon" on WHO radio Des Moines. www.whoradio.com you can get the live broadcast there. I think you have to register, but its free of course. For those of you in the know, that's the radio station where Ronald Reagen started in broadcasting.

As far as Giuliani goes, he did have a strong night, but it was as opportunity presented itself in the guise of the jester Paul. I think his strongest line of the night (if I remember correctly) was overshadowed and lost in the exchange with the Paul and that was his quoting of Hilary's position on free markets to contrast his conservative credentials.

From the NR link you provided:

Quote:

---

I love that Mike Huckabee, Baptist-minister social conservative, emanates “normal” and “likable.”

---

Huckabee can be engaging. However is it just me or does anyone else think that he probably moonlights as a Kevin Spacey stunt double.

I was actually liking Ron Paul until the "it's our fault" thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus

You really found Tancredo cartoonish?

---

Yes. Being a single issue presidential candidate already moves one in the cartoon direction. Using speech affectations i.e. 'like' and 'you know' in a Presidential Debate lessen the rhetorical gravitas. Not paying attention to the questions or issues does the same. An example of the latter: there was a series of questions that moved along the lines of a terrorist attack scenario. The scenario involved several attacks on shopping malls with one group of terrorists being captured and the thought a larger attack was in the works. The thrust was what techniques would be allowed to get information from the captured. Tancredo couched his response in terms of what he would do after the nuclear attacks (not in the question) and that he would be looking for Jack Bauer to get the job done (suggesting the law is dispensable).

Quote:

---

Huckabee can be engaging. However is it just me or does anyone else think that he probably moonlights as a Kevin Spacey stunt double.

---

Hehe. I can see it, kind of an uglier version of Spacey.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

I was actually liking Ron Paul until the "it's our fault" thing.

---

Paul is an isolationist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

The thrust was what techniques would be allowed to get information from the captured. Tancredo couched his response in terms of what he would do after the nuclear attacks (not in the question) and that he would be looking for Jack Bauer to get the job done (suggesting the law is dispensable).

---

Points taken on Tancredo although I would encourage you to listen to more of his interviews, if you haven't, as he does become more than a one issue candidate, at least to me. Twenty four hours later and my recollection of specifics is less than admirable, but as far as the nuclear attack didn't the question find its way to him after another candidate fielded it in a figurative refocus of "instead of once the bomb has gone off, we should focus on prevention" and therefore wasn't his reference to refocus and say he'd be looking for a metaphorical Jack Bauer? This is not far off from what many of the candidates stated in saying they would take responsibilty for the call on what means would be used to save American lives.

Of course I could be off on my memory so please do correct...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus

Points taken on Tancredo although I would encourage you to listen to more of his interviews, if you haven't, as he does become more than a one issue candidate, at least to me. Twenty four hours later and my recollection of specifics is less than admirable, but as far as the nuclear attack didn't the question find its way to him after another candidate fielded it in a figurative refocus of "instead of once the bomb has gone off, we should focus on prevention" and therefore wasn't his reference to refocus and say he'd be looking for a metaphorical Jack Bauer? This is not far off from what many of the candidates stated in saying they would take responsibilty for the call on what means would be used to save American lives.

Of course I could be off on my memory so please do correct...

---

The scenario was bounced off of several candidates. The focus was the parameters of torture particularly the notion of water-boarding and language parsing torture with some variant of strong arm interrogation (with McCain being the only one who totally rejected such ideas). I don't recall anyone mentioning nukes before Tancredo. I noted it because is seemed to come out of nowhere.

I haven't listened to too many interviews of Tancredo or the others beyond the top three as they don't really seem viable. If I were running the debates I would require from here on out participation requires that a person has at least 5% support in national polls or has raised at least 20% of the money of the top money raiser. This would cut the numbers properly and allow more meaningful debates.

I concur that Giuliani came out the strongest in this debate. I thought McCain did fine but I definitely think his stature and popularity in the GOP has shrunk too much for him to take the nomination. Romney made a damn strong show of it and handled all questions with aplomb but his responses didn't seem as genuine as Giuliani's or McCain's.

On a totally superficial level I finally got a good look at Romney and I realized that from a visual standpoint the man simply screams Presidential alpha male material. Romney's looks, stature, voice and mannerisms puts all other contenders, Republican or Democrat, at a huge disadvantage. Policy wise Romney may come across as a bit of an opportunistic flip flopper but in a field full of flip floppers that puts him on even ground. I daresay Romney has the same sort of looks/charisma factor going for him that put JFK in the White House.

Ron Paul scored points with me on the small government, Founding Fathers stuff until he went bats--t crazy and committed political suicide on stage with his 9/11 remarks. 9/11 is as much a reaction of America's desire to exist and conduct business as it sees fit as it was a reaction to our Middle Eastern foreign policy. Someone needs to tell Ron that the days of being a truly isolationist nation are behind us. Furthermore, why should we surrender our nation's economic & political initiative because some fanatics don't like our culture, our friends or the way we do business?

With the exception of Tancredo who did pretty well I thought the other candidates were rather blah and dull in that it was painfully obvious when they went into pre-rehearsed political robot mode.

If Giuliani or Romney get the nomination the Republicans should easily take the White House in '08.

The thing that struck me about the Republican debate is how much grittier it was than the Democrat one. It felt like a real debate and the answers given were seemingly meatier and more substantial than the ones the Dems gave. I suppose you could chalk it up to less rhetoric and Fox's excellent mediation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spino

...Someone needs to tell Ron that the days of being a truly isolationist nation are behind us. Furthermore, why should we surrender our nation's economic & political initiative because some fanatics don't like our culture, our friends or the way we do business?

---

That's the Libertarian party in a nutshell -- pardon the pun -- they come over great on some important subjects like taxes and smaller government and the role of the judiciary and seemingly take a realistic if unpopular stance on others such as drug legalization....and then you scratch the surface a bit and too many of them display a tinfoil hat or the desire to crank back foreign policy to Washington's farewell address -- eminently unpractical. Pity really, they probably represent the closest thing to a true "match" for my political beliefs on their good issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spino

The thing that struck me about the Republican debate is how much grittier it was than the Democrat one. It felt like a real debate and the answers given were seemingly meatier and more substantial than the ones the Dems gave. I suppose you could chalk it up to less rhetoric and Fox's excellent mediation.

---

Stop saying things like that. You're shattering a cherished American Liberal myth that the folks at FOX are not only slanted to the right but incompetent boobs as well. :smartass2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

That's the Libertarian party in a nutshell -- pardon the pun -- they come over great on some important subjects like taxes and smaller government and the role of the judiciary and seemingly take a realistic if unpopular stance on others such as drug legalization....and then you scratch the surface a bit and too many of them display a tinfoil hat or the desire to crank back foreign policy to Washington's farewell address -- eminently unpractical. Pity really, they probably represent the closest thing to a true "match" for my political beliefs on their good issues.

---

Now now lets not be to nasty, if you hadnt noticed I lean towards libertarians as well.

We'd do well to have a non intervention foriegn policy for a while, let everyone else hammer out there own lots. I do concede that the Libertarian party is rather extreme in its unyeilding views, but they do bring ideas to the table that could be adopted by the other parties.

Hell, if Ross perot could get a balanced budget pushed into the american psychy, anything is possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spino

The thing that struck me about the Republican debate is how much grittier it was than the Democrat one. It felt like a real debate and the answers given were seemingly meatier and more substantial than the ones the Dems gave. I suppose you could chalk it up to less rhetoric and Fox's excellent mediation.

---

Bah! Where were the weighty questions- like when Mike Wallace asked Romney if he had pre-marital sex with his wife? These are the important questions. :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spino

The thing that struck me about the Republican debate is how much grittier it was than the Democrat one. It felt like a real debate and the answers given were seemingly meatier and more substantial than the ones the Dems gave. I suppose you could chalk it up to less rhetoric and Fox's excellent mediation.

---

That's the point, dude. It's all a game. It's also one of the reasons I don't take part in serious political discussions at this level anymore.

Quote:

---

That's the Libertarian party in a nutshell -- pardon the pun -- they come over great on some important subjects like taxes and smaller government and the role of the judiciary and seemingly take a realistic if unpopular stance on others such as drug legalization....and then you scratch the surface a bit and too many of them display a tinfoil hat or the desire to crank back foreign policy to Washington's farewell address -- eminently unpractical. Pity really, they probably represent the closest thing to a true "match" for my political beliefs on their good issues.

---

Well as a Libertarian let me say a few things. I am at heart an isolationist. I can see where their coming from. But Im afraid in todays shrinking world this is just not a feasible position. These people are the religous right of the Libertarian party. Its whats holding them back on the really important matters that they have the right ideas on. As far as legalizing drugs goes that would be the greatest boon to the US in half a century since these insane drug laws came into being.

Giuliani came out looking the best in my opinion. I hope conservatives do not disregard a proven leader over social issues a president really has no sway over anyway. :shame:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Well as a Libertarian let me say a few things. I am at heart an isolationist. I can see where their coming from. But Im afraid in todays shrinking world this is just not a feasible position.

---

Good on you, you've got a more realistic assessment. Now if the Liber's could get down to a practical discussion of HOW to refocus our FoPo and what realistic drawbacks could be made, they might have a real winner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

These people are the religous right of the Libertarian party. Its whats holding them back on the really important matters that they have the right ideas on.

---

We're agreed on that. They vex me because they have such promise on some subjects. Tempered with a notch of realism and they could do great things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

As far as legalizing drugs goes that would be the greatest boon to the US in half a century since these insane drug laws came into being.

---

The though of legalizing drugs repulses me, but I simply cannot come up with another answer that makes sense. Once legalized, however, I think we'll be writing off a ridiculously high percentage of the next generation of younglings before the real lessons sink in. Makes me sad that I can't think of a better way.

Quote:

---

The though of legalizing drugs repulses me, but I simply cannot come up with another answer that makes sense. Once legalized, however, I think we'll be writing off a ridiculously high percentage of the next generation of younglings before the real lessons sink in. Makes me sad that I can't think of a better way.

---

Would you believe I grew up before there were drug laws? That I never even heard of pot in HS? No drug laws no drug problem. Once they put the profit in it it the cat was out of the bag as they say. The little bastard isnt going to be easy to put back in the bag.

If you remove the profit from it theres not going to be much crime associated with it any longer. Addicts wont have to rob to get enough money to get high and their wont be any money in selling it illegally. The worst youd have is people trying to avoid the taxes.

As to the kids the easiest place to find drugs is the local HS. Id make drugs legal but if you sell them to a minor your gone. No plea bargain. Im a firm believer in giving people a lot of slack(responsibilty) but if they abuse it a lot of punishment.

If drugs are ever legalised here, I'll throw a fit if one dime of my money goes to paying for some imbecile's hospital fees when they overdose.

On topic, I'm with ya PJ. Soo aggravating listening to these GOP voters calling in NPR today to say that no matter what, they will never vote for anyone who isn't pro-life.

Giuliani fits my bill pretty well, fiscally conservative, but morally liberal to a point. Stand up guy he is. I like to think that not all GOPers are Religious Morons. It'd be nice to see for ONCE just ONCE to have a Prez who didn't wave his money in your face, and also go to church once a month and then also throw that in your face.

Quote:

---

If drugs are ever legalised here, I'll throw a fit if one dime of my money goes to paying for some imbecile's hospital fees when they overdose.

---

The taxes collexted will more than pay for that. Plus the huge savings in law enforcement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wakizashi

I like to think that not all GOPers are Religious Morons.

---

This might be interesting to see an expansion on.