Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

First Republican debate tonight

Election 2008 Republican Debate 2007

  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#21 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 04 May 2007 - 11:03 AM

Well. you guys pretty much covered it.  I agree with comments made here.  

The pandering to Mrs. Reagan was pathetic.  I swear if I heard one more reference to the "great communicator" I was going to run screaming into the night.  They had 60 freaking seconds to answer a question, and wasted it on trying to align themselves with Reagan instead of being tied to Bush.  Which isn't such a bad idea, but with 10 of them doing it, it was real obvious.

I liked Ron Paul's stand on National ID's.  I also had to laugh when so many rushed to clarify that they only meant non-citizens should have National ID's when that really wasn't what they all said originally.

If there was one man I could vote for it was Paul.  He really is cut in the Libertarian mold.

McCain just scares me at this point.

Guiliani is a non-starter in my book and nothing he said did anything to change my mind.  He referenced 9/11 so many times I wanted to reach through the monitor and slap him.  I would have never voted for him anyway with his take on the "Unitary President".  We don't need another President picking up where the last one left off on 'being above the law'.

All in all, I think they were all playing good ol politicians for the Grand Old  Party regulars.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#22 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 04 May 2007 - 11:08 AM

View PostQueenTiye, on May 4 2007, 11:44 AM, said:

Glad you mentioned Guiliani's idiotic claim about getting the hostages in 2 minutes. :Oo:  Ok, I know he didn't mean that, but geez. I think that kinda cheapens Reagan's accomplishment...

QT

It overlooks the fact that Iranian-backed Hezbollah subsequently blew up the Marine barracks in Lebanon, and took American hostages that were held for years... under Regan.  

But why let the facts get in the way of a good pander?

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#23 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 04 May 2007 - 11:14 AM

Cait--Isn't Ron Paul adamantly pro-life, despite his libertarian views?  

I believe he's also quite anti-gay.  IIRC, there was a vote in favor of a ban on gays adopting children--which is particularly hateful to me, much much moreso than votes to ban gays from serving openly in the military and votes to ban gay marriage...  both of which I believe he has also signed-on to.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#24 Mel

Mel
  • Islander
  • 447 posts

Posted 04 May 2007 - 11:52 AM

View PostScottEVill, on May 4 2007, 11:14 AM, said:

Cait--Isn't Ron Paul adamantly pro-life, despite his libertarian views?  

I believe he's also quite anti-gay.  IIRC, there was a vote in favor of a ban on gays adopting children--which is particularly hateful to me, much much moreso than votes to ban gays from serving openly in the military and votes to ban gay marriage...  both of which I believe he has also signed-on to.

He is a pro-life Ob-Gyn.  From what I've been able to gather of his beliefs he believes that abortion is morally wrong.  He further believes that it is not a federal issue, but a state one--he's a pretty strict Constitutionalist/Federalist and believes that the "interstate commerce" and "general welfare" clauses of the Constitution have been abused to allow the federal government (all three branches) to usurp authority from the states.  Therefore in his absolute ideal world I believe voters in all 50 states would voluntarily make abortion illegal and both the court system and the federal government would stay out of it completely.  (I'm not saying he really thinks this would happen, it's just what he would have if he could have what he wanted.  It has the added benefit that at least in some states abortions would almost definitely become more limited than they currently are.)

Again this is my interpretation of his beliefs and may not be accurate.  I did a fair bit of browsing of his site when I was trying to decide whether to vote for him or his challenger in November's election.  I found his site useful and easy to use, so I've gone back periodically to see where he stands on issue.

I looked up his stance on Gay marriage, etc on Wikipedia

Quote

Congressman Paul's position on gay marriage is that defining and recognizing marriages is not a Federal or constitutional matter, but should be left as the States' right.[30] In 1999 he voted for H.R. 2587 which contained an amendment that sought to prevent the use of Federal funding for the promotion of adoptions of foster children being used to promote joint adoptions by unrelated, unmarried people. There was no mention of gay adoptions in the bill, but the amendment could have been construed to act negatively upon gay couples adopting children in the District of Columbia, and in any event was not present in the final bill.[31]

He voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004. In a 2004 speech before Congress he expressed support for the Federal Defense of Marriage Act and expressed his support for the Marriage Protection Act as an alternative to the FMA. [30]

In other words he thinks that pretty much all of this is a state issue (like the vast majority of things in his opinion).  I think he was for the FDMA because it kept one state from telling another what to do (if we recognize gay marriage you have to).

Anyone who's interested in him, should read the Wikipedia article about his political views.  His beliefs swing towards the extreme at times, but they are definitely interesting.

Quote

Paul opposes virtually all federal interference with the market process. He supports the abolition of the income tax, most Cabinet departments and the Federal Reserve.


#25 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,302 posts

Posted 04 May 2007 - 11:53 AM

View PostMuseZack, on May 4 2007, 12:53 AM, said:

After seeing the debate, all I can be is thankful that Huckabee isn't doing better in the primary.  With his avuncular, likeable manner and soothing words about the environment and workers' rights, he's IMO by far the most formidable candidate in the general election.

Meant to get back to this.  What don't you like about him that makes you glad he's not doing better?

I'm hoping we get strong candidates on both sides - so that whichever side wins, I'm ok with it.

QT

Edited by QueenTiye, 04 May 2007 - 11:54 AM.

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#26 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 04 May 2007 - 12:27 PM

View PostScottEVill, on May 4 2007, 09:14 AM, said:

Cait--Isn't Ron Paul adamantly pro-life, despite his libertarian views?  

I believe he's also quite anti-gay.  IIRC, there was a vote in favor of a ban on gays adopting children--which is particularly hateful to me, much much moreso than votes to ban gays from serving openly in the military and votes to ban gay marriage...  both of which I believe he has also signed-on to.

Is he?  Damn.  He had some non-objectionable stands on other topics.  Oh well, the chances of me voting for a Republican were slim to none anyway.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#27 Nittany Lioness

Nittany Lioness

    Craving a little perspective.

  • Islander
  • 3,537 posts

Posted 04 May 2007 - 12:44 PM

Just regarding MSNBC's handling of the broadcast - I was frustrated and surprised that they repeatedly failed to flash candidates' names on the screen while they talked.  It was inconsistent and it would be a fair claim if some of them complained they weren't given equal treatment.  After all, this is very much an introduction to the nation of who the hell these people are.
In addition, several times the camera did a close-up of the wrong candidate for the question for not just a split second but several moments before the lame director scrambled.  ie. Guiliani or Romney is standing there while we hear another voice answering.
Then towards about the half-way mark, host Matthews appeared to get disorganized about the granted timeframes, and freestyled it so much to the point of allowing the "down-the-line" answering to give one candidate alot more "clarifying" time, and others had to give a quick yes or no.  
And talk about pride in themselves - that Politico.com guy thought he had everyone's number didn't he, with that confrontational march-across that was supposed to look oh so casual and spontaneous.  I betcha he practiced that beforehand.  :p  

I sometimes like my co-Philly boy Chris Matthews, as his genuine love of politics is apparent and his style cuts through a lot of crap, but he too often simply doesn't let people finish when they're actually answering his question, and sometimes his biased questions are unprofessionally harsh, or tricks.  (Plus he hired that god-awful hatchet wannabe David Shuster) Still, I think he has a deep understanding of what news journalists are supposed to do, he just goes overboard.  But that's his nightly show - his questions for this debate were perfectly fine for the most part; again, he lost just control of the timer after a bit.

Edited by Nittany Lioness, 04 May 2007 - 12:49 PM.

I'm cold Howard.jpg


#28 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,302 posts

Posted 04 May 2007 - 01:53 PM

I hadn't thought of that, Nittany Lioness - but you're right.  I really had no idea who some of these people were, and it would have helped if they flashed the name (or let the name show) more often. And yep - I found myself annoyed at the lopsidedness of letting one guy drone on and on and on during one of the up and down the line questions.  However - I bet that he (Matthews) regrets that - and probably didn't expect the guy to go on quite so long.  

As to the guy walking up on the stage - I think the proof is in the pudding.  We heard a lot more from the Hugh Jr. than we did from that guy.  I bet that was a dictatorial choice.

QT

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#29 Captain Jack

Captain Jack

    Where's the rum?

  • Islander
  • 14,914 posts

Posted 04 May 2007 - 03:17 PM

View PostQueenTiye, on May 4 2007, 07:07 AM, said:

Well - to be fair to the candidates - all the questions were about God, Sanctity of Life, etc.  I found that disappointing, because comparatively, there's just no way to rate this group's performance against the last group's performance.

Agreed.  I don't know why, but I was expecting the same questions that were asked to the Democrats last week, be asked to the Republicans this week.  It would have been a lot more informative and helpful seeing them answer them and compare.

Quote

Re: Huckabee - turns out he is a minister by profession! I didn't know that.  But anyway - I did like him a great deal, but I agreed with the call Scarborough made, that Romney won the debate.  I personally found Romney's switch on family issues to be in good conscience, and would like to hear what he'd like to replace Roe v Wade with.  Not sure I got that answer from him, and I'm not convinced that the states rights issue is convincing on this topic.

QT

I came to the same conclusion late last night.

View PostQueenTiye, on May 4 2007, 07:10 AM, said:

View PostSpectacles, on May 4 2007, 07:20 AM, said:

McCain looked like a nervous wreck and punctuated his every utterance with a finger jab and a creepy smile.


Forgot to mention ... yep!  That's absolutely how it came across.  And creepy doesn't even begin to cover it.  My stomach turned watching him.  

QT

Well, in all fairness, he's suffered a lot in his life.  It had to have been very stressful being up there with the pace that the whole program went along at.  I've seen him on Leno and Letterman, as well as on other TV news spots, and he is much better when more relaxed.
Posted Image
689 Reasons to Defeat Barack Obama in 2012:

https://www.national...at-barack-obama

#30 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,302 posts

Posted 04 May 2007 - 03:29 PM

Given how highly prepped McCain actually was - I don't think I can forgive him for his poor performance. Nor can I forgive him when his primary point is how experienced he is (and he IS experienced).  He wasn't up there being weakwilled - he's looking scared (it seems to me) of his competition - not of the cameras or the pace of the debate. More importantly - he actually set the pace.  That's something I can say in his favor.  He didn't go faster when the pace picked up - when the camera was on him, he spoke at his own pace, as if he was not going to let the camera, or the moderators or anything derail him from HIS gameplan. Problem was - his gameplan was so well rehearsed that it came off as insincere at best, and at worst - like a guy who really couldn't adjust to the climate and was clinging to the game plan with white knuckles.

QT

Een Draght Mackt Maght




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Election 2008, Republican Debate, 2007

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users