Posted on 05/03/2007 3:19:11 PM PDT by CounterCounterCulture
Republican Presidential Candidate Debate #1 – Reagan Library 05/03/07 - Official Discussion Thread
The debate will take place at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California, and will air live on MSNBC from 8:00 to 9:30 pm (ET) and stream live on MSNBC.com and politico.com and will include audience questions gathered on politico.com.
So you need an actual poll to tell you that most Americans oppose the war in Iraq? Okay. This data comes from a recent CNN poll results. Fox, WSJ and others show the same basic data.
April.10-12
US War in Iraq
Favor 32%
Oppose 66%
Btw, I support the war in Iraq. How about you?
Maybe you don’t understand when someone posts a smiley as part of the commentary.
Lighten up, Francis...:)
IMHO, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Romney is nothing like Bill Clinton. Romney clearly won the debate and is a strong candidate whether you like him or not.
BTW, a lack of health care in this country increases the risk for serious pandemics to spread like wildfire, just like in third world country’s. There is now a totally drug resistant form of TB out there. A gentleman is currently being held in quarantine in Arizona with this dread disease under court order. He picked it up in Russia. Poor medical care has contributed to the evolution of drug resistant diseases, which left unchecked will cause havoc worldwide. Just a prediction.
You remind me of craigs list and that not good!
Socialized medicine didn't get us the best medical care in the world, the free market did. You folks are willing to justify anything for this guy. It's getting scary, frankly.
Because McCain was borrwoing someone else line that was not his too use!
That was actually part of yet another lie from Romney. He flip-flopped on his explanation for what his Tsongas vote was all about.
The guy just can't seem to get his story straight!
No. You misunderstand. When it comes to the radical attack on the First Amendment that McCain-Feingold represents, Mr. Romney was right there with them advocating for it. Just one more glaring example of how Romney’s current rhetoric bears not even a passing resemblence to his record.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/romneys-about-face-on-campaign-funding-2007-02-08.html
Romney’s about-face on campaign funding
By Alexander Bolton
February 08, 2007
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who strongly criticized campaign-finance regulations in a private meeting with House conservatives last week, once touted dramatic restructuring measures such as taxing political contributions and placing spending limits on federal campaigns.
Romney’s past positions on campaign-finance regulation, anathema to many social conservatives who believe such rules place unconstitutional limits on free speech, could complicate his ongoing efforts to court conservative leaders.
*snip*
A review of Romney’s public statements from his 1994 senatorial and 2002 gubernatorial campaigns reveal that he once touted stringent campaign-finance modifications.
A Boston Globe article from July 1994 reported that Romney publicly advocated placing spending limits on congressional campaigns and abolishing political action committees (PACs).
*snip*
Just skimmed the video, looking for key parts in the transcript...
Hunter and Tancredo did well :-)
> Rudy was, IMHO, the big loser.
Absolutely! Mr. Nervous McCrankypants sure didn’t like having his liberal views laid out in full and stark fashion.
Do you mean Mitt, The Life Long Hunter?
To me, Romney came across as shallow, a politician to the core, and I don’t buy anything he says.
Michael Frazier
Peggy Noonan seems to have a reasonable take on the debate.
Mitt Romney won, but mainly because he’s a polished career climber. Rudy Giuliani lost because he’s still unbelievably clueless about abortion. McCain stayed alive.
The questions were stupid and Chris Matthews was predictably hostile. Apparently the DNC gets to organize both the Democrat and the Republican debates.
And Fred Thompson dominated by his absence.
In a head-to-head comparison, I still think he beats Rudy. At least Romney is somewhat apologetic about it - Rudy stands proud of his gun grabbing ways.
Other candidates are far superior to Romney on guns, no doubt about it.
Noonan, Pundits: Romney Won Debate
Political pundits have been weighing in on Thursday night’s Republican debate, and there appears to be heavy sentiment favoring Mitt Romney’s performance.
But former Massachusetts Gov. Romney "had a certain good-natured command, a presidential voice, and a surprising wiliness. He seemed happy to be there, and in the mysterious way that some people seem to dominate, he dominated.”
http://www.newsmax.com/
___________________
*The winner was?: Chris Matthews, the MSNBC moderator who ran the first televised GOP debate on Friday at the Reagan Presidential Library, has weighed in. Chronicle columnist Debra J. Saunders, sitting inside the debate auditorium, heard MSNBC s Matthews -- still on the stage at the close -- tell Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, that he came out ahead at the end of the 90-minute showdown. "Everyone says you won," Matthews said.
He wasn't alone: former Senator Jim Talent of Missouri, a Romney guru, was one of an army of insiders who hit the crowded "spin room" following the debate to talk up his man. "A lot of people will see Mitt Romney for the first time tonight," he said. "We don't have to spin it. He gave clear responses. He was reassured and energized."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=16185
It’s true. Others are also more believable on other issues.
Mitt doesn’t give me the feeling that he holds strongly to any idea but getting elected.
Rudi was pretty bad, wasn’t he.
Michael Frazier
I've supported it since October 2002, when it was debated on the Senate floor, even while Democrats said Saddam posed a threat, and would have a nuke in his hands by 2007.
It’s true. Others are also more believable on other issues.
Mitt doesn’t give me the feeling that he holds strongly to any idea but getting elected.
Rudi was pretty bad, wasn’t he.
Michael Frazier
Well, here’s what Peggy said about Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney, extracted from her column:
They stood earnestly in a row, combed, primped and prepped, as Nancy Reagan gazed up at them with courteous interest. But behind the hopeful candidates, a dwarfing shadow loomed, a shadow almost palpable in its power to remind Republicans of the days when men were men and the party was united. His power is only increased by his absence. But enough about Fred Thompson. . . . [cut]
Mitt Romney has to show he is not just an intelligent and articulate operator who is chasing the next and logical résumé point for no particular reason beyond that it’s next, and logical. . . . [cut]
The statuesque Mr. Romney had a certain good-natured command, a presidential voice, and a surprising wiliness. He seemed happy to be there, and in the mysterious way that some people seem to dominate, he dominated. He had a quick witted answer when Mr. Mathews asked him if the Roman Catholic Church should deny communion to pro-abortion politicians. What, said, Matthews, would he say to the bishops? “I don’t say anything to Roman Catholic Bishops,” he said. “They can do whatever the heck they want!” He deftly flipped it into a church-state issue. He did some light-handed and audience-pleasing Clinton bashing, and was confident on stem-cell research. But he was weak on Iraq, predictable, like someone who knows the answer that polls right with the base. How can you be utterly banal about a war, and such a controversial one?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.