Republican Presidential Candidate Debate #8 – Dearborn, MI 10/09/07 - Official Discussion Thread

[ejonesie22]

No explanation for those who find it with Ron Puckhead.

-Insanity

-Excessive pot use

-aliens from another dimension...

[Badeye]

Yep.

And they didn’t want to compete with ‘prime time’.

[Netizen]

I’m just saying if we don’t work together to beat Hillary, we deserve what and who we get. She has one mission - and that’s to destroy this country with her socialist programs that will raise our taxes and give us a nanny state.

Replace Hillary with Gore and Kerry and that's what we did the last two presidential elections and what did it get us?

Somebody pass the vaseline.

[Rumierules]

We got Justices Roberts and Alito. Granted Alito wasn’t deilvered with style points (see Miers).

But we got something better than the alternatives.

[Ooh-Ah]

As one who has been following (and fighting) terrorism since the early eighties, I am mostly a single issue voter. I want a President who can articulate THE issue of our time, not be afraid to call it what it IS and DO something about it!

EVEN back when my hero Ronald Reagan was President, the Soviet involvement in arming, training and financing terrorists was not addressed.

Under President Clinton the only terrorists were Right Wing Americans!

President Bush AND Vice President Cheney have had to break new ground in dealing with terrorism because THERE WAS NO BASE for understanding the long term goals of our enemies.

Almost all of the Republican candidates are heads and shoulders above ALL the Democrats. In fact, as disgusting as this sounds, if you look at the Dems, Hillary is probably the best.

For MY main issue, there isn’t 1 Dem for whom I could vote. While there are several Republicans who are very good, I want the one who can best recognize and articulate the dangers we are facing from the outside and from within.

I believe it is an especially critical time in our history when many issues should not be the main issues in a Presidential race. It does not mean that they are not important but that we should think of other ways of dealing with them and focus on our security.

[mnehring]

I missed the debate, how did Fred do?

Not bad, but not the Reagan performance we were hoping for but he isn't a slick hairspray candidate like Romney. He definitely showed he knew the facts and had clear, logical answers. Only a couple of zingers, one back at Romney when he tried to zing Fred (called Romney the best actor on stage).. he also took Chrissy Matthews out to the woodshed once (..well, that's your opinion Christopher..)

[GeorgiaDawg]

We got to pick Supreme Court nominees. What do you think the court would look like had Al Gore chosen the Supreme Court chief justice?

What I’m saying is...sure Bush let us down in a lot of ways. Things would be infinitely worse with Gore or Kerry. Hillary makes both of them look like members of the John Birch Society. You’ll really need the vaseline then!

[fatnotlazy]

Everyone seems to be looking for another Ronald Reagan, but I don’t think we’re going to find him. Even for being an actor, I think Fred Thompson is not going to be the “great communicator” and actually that’s fine with me. I don’t necessarily have to have someone who talks so eloquently. For me actions speak louder than words. George Bush is not a great orator either, but for the most part, he’s been a rather decent President...certainly a heckuva lot better than any of the Democrats out there.

[traviskicks]

Does what I previously posted not satisfy you?:

well, here is a sample of some of the legislation paul has sponsored (this is a list from the 106th Congress):

http://www.house.gov/paul/legis/106/

I think it lays out pretty well his exact thoughts and plan of action on a great number of topics. I don’t think you will find much to disgree with there.

[Preachin']

Quite honestly, I must say up front that I am not a Ron Paul fan.

Paul’s biggest disadvantage is not necessarily his ideas, as most people are not really paying that close attention to policy at this point. I think we all know that the debates are generally fluff until the nominees debate one another.

Paul’s biggest problem is that he talks like a kook. It’s not even what he says; It’s his lack of style and the painful squeal of his voice.

You must be honest that no “republican” who opposes the war in Iraq has a shot at the nomination, regardless of any other points where they shine.

[OKIEDOC]

I believe you are correct, especially on the 163 at 7:30 in the morning.

[Preachin']

“Fred looks like hell. He is sick.”

I watched this yesterday and was not on FR at that time. Is it just me, or did it seem that McCain is going deaf?

[mnehring]

You call that 'How'?

Let's give everyone an example. Paul's bill to withdraw from the WTO had the following detail as to how.

Withdrawing the approval of the United States from the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress withdraws its approval, provided under section 101(a) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, of the WTO Agreement as defined in section 2(9) of that Act.

Yes folks, that was the text of the bill.

Or how about a big one, elimination of the federal reserve.

SEC. 2. FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD ABOLISHED. (a) IN GENERAL- Effective at the end of the 1-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and each Federal reserve bank are hereby abolished. (b) REPEAL OF FEDERAL RESERVE ACT- Effective at the end of the 1-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the Federal Reserve Act is hereby repealed. (c) DISPOSITION OF AFFAIRS- (1) MANAGEMENT DURING DISSOLUTION PERIOD- During the 1-year period referred to in subsection (a), the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System-- (A) shall, for the sole purpose of winding up the affairs of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks-- (i) manage the employees of the Board and each such bank and provide for the payment of compensation and benefits of any such employee which accrue before the position of such employee is abolished; and (ii) manage the assets and liabilities of the Board and each such bank until such assets and liabilities are liquidated or assumed by the Secretary of the Treasury in accordance with this subsection; and (B) may take such other action as may be necessary, subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, to wind up the affairs of the Board and the Federal reserve banks. (2) LIQUIDATION OF ASSETS- (A) IN GENERAL- The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall liquidate all assets of the Board and the Federal reserve banks in an orderly manner so as to achieve as expeditious a liquidation as may be practical while maximizing the return to the Treasury. (B) TRANSFER TO TREASURY- After satisfying all claims against the Board and any Federal reserve bank which are accepted by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and redeeming the stock of such banks, the net proceeds of the liquidation under subparagraph (A) shall be transferred to the Secretary of the Treasury and deposited in the General Fund of the Treasury. (3) ASSUMPTION OF LIABILITIES- All outstanding liabilities of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks at the time such entities are abolished, including any liability for retirement and other benefits for former officers and employees of the Board or any such bank in accordance with employee retirement and benefit programs of the Board and any such bank, shall become the liability of the Secretary of the Treasury and shall be paid from amounts deposited in the general fund pursuant to paragraph (2) which are hereby appropriated for such purpose until all such liabilities are satisfied. (d) REPORT- At the end of the 18-month period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall submit a joint report to the Congress containing a detailed description of the actions taken to implement this Act and any actions or issues relating to such implementation that remain uncompleted or unresolved as of the date of the report.

LOL.. I have more detail in a pre-planning meeting for a product launch. As MNJohnnie keeps putting it, Paul is long on rhetoric, short on details.

[traviskicks]

well I watched the debate last night (yes my comments on this thread before were before I had actually seen it :)).

My thoughts were more against Romney and Rudy and Huckbee than anything. They gave politician, rehearsed answers, trying to touch ‘all bases’, being as vague and as liberal as possible. Obviously they put a lot of ‘preparation’ into the debate and it showed, and for the worse.

My favorite was actually Thompson, I thought he gave pretty good knock down conservative answers, non pandering and didn’t display any of the ‘oldness’ or ‘weakness’ people talked about in this thread. He is probaly the only alternative I would vote for (although not campaign for), besides Paul.

Brownback, and Trancredo, I liked personally, which is interesting because I’m not a fan of Trancredo’s immigration stance, but I still found his other views, although not articulated particularly well to be refrshing. Brownback is off on foreign policy, but gave some good views on some other subject.

Duncan, with his ‘communist china’ (drink) and seeming protectionism, and other stances didn’t seem like a small gov conservative, more like a football player. McCain, couldn’t really pin him down, he seemed sincere, but liberal as in ‘just not getting it liberal’. lol

Paul, obviously, regardless of the debate, I support the most because of his past record and present positions on repealing American socialism, I thought underperformed. To be honest I thought he would excell in an economics debate as he has the best domestic economics voting record of any candidate on the stage, bar none, period, end of story, it’s not even close. Yet, first he only got to speak like 3 times, certainly the least of any candidate and the times he did speak he sounded more like a democrat. One would not have known he was the most conservative domestic candidate on the stage. At the end interview Lary Kudow basically had to pull it out of him how he would abolish half the fed gov. Why isn’t he proud of this, why doesn’t he say this the first time they ask him a question? Why doesn’t he talk about how he wants to abolish the IRS?

His views on foreign policy are good and he should defend them, not talk about them in ways that get him lumped with far left foreign policy, using words like ‘military industrial complex’ and he even mentioned ‘medical industrial comlex’, which is interesting but deserves explanation, not just being thrown out there.

So, that’s my 2 cents, somewhat dissapointed, maybe we’ll see better next time. :)

oh and btw, how come no candidate took the unions to task? Paul and some of the others did a little bit, but didn’t elaborate.

[johnthebaptistmoore]

If Al Gore ends up also running again for President, and he ends up being the eventual choice of either the Green Party or the Unity ‘08 Party instead of the Democratic Party, then I would breathe a little bit easier for the eventual ‘08 GOP Presidential candidate. This is only a possible situation and not a probable situation IMHO.

[mnehring]

Paul and some of the others did a little bit

I thought the extent of Paul's answer on unions was something like "I believe in the right of the people to unionize..." not exactly taking them to task.

[mnehring]

Yep, here was the extent of Paul's taking the 'unions to task.

Mr. Paul: The right to unionize should be a basic right of any group.

Mr. Paul: You should be able to organize. You should have no privileges, no special benefits legislated to benefit the unions, but you should never deny any working group to organize and negotiate for the best set of standards of working conditions.

That was his entire answer to the question.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119196048730753698.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

[GeorgiaDawg]

Actually, I’m shocked that Gore hasn’t run. I thought there would be a clamor to “draft” him as a Green Party candidate since he is the darling of the media.

[traviskicks]

You should have no privileges, no special benefits legislated to benefit the unions

This sentence was more than all the other GOP candidates put together said in substance against the Unions. Without this the entire platform of unions would collapse in the United States, they exist in such power today because of specific governmetn legislation. However, unless one knows about this kind of stuff, his comment seems rather benign...

[mnehring]

This sentence was more than all the other GOP candidates put together said in substance against the Unions.

Let's look at what Paul said again.
Mr. Paul: The right to unionize should be a basic right of any group. Mr. Paul: You should be able to organize. You should have no privileges, no special benefits legislated to benefit the unions, but you should never deny any working group to organize and negotiate for the best set of standards of working conditions.

Now let's look at what some of the others said.

McCain.
I think the key to unions is that any American has the right and privilege to join a union, but should never be forced to do so. And this latest ploy of the Democrats, of signing people up in the most willy-nilly fashion is something that needs to be rejected, because it will not protect the rights of workers who do not wish to join a union.

Romney
...With regards to unions overall, there are some good ones and some not so good. The good ones are those that say how can we do a better and better job helping our members have better and better skills and making sure that the enterprises they work in are more and more productive?...Mr. Romney: But there are bad unions as well, which go too far and who forget that in order for them to be successful the enterprise that they're involved with as to also be successful.

Thompson
Now, I believe in the right that if workers ban together for their own purposes, no questions about that. I do not believe a person ought to have to be a member of the union to work. I do not believe that union bosses ought to use union dues for political purposes that their members don't necessarily agree with. And I do not agree with them denying union members a secret ballot. But other than that, I think that they've done a lot of good over the years for this country and will continue to do so.

Brownback
I think there can be abuses, and I think you're seeing some of them taking place. Department of Labor is going through and looking at some of those abuses, and I think the government has to work aggressively to see that those don't take place and that there is effective oversight, which I don't think you see during a Democrat administration.

Tancredo
That is really one of the problems: that we do allow civil servants to also have union benefits. And, believe me, that becomes a conflict....The creative conflict that occurs between unions and management is usually a good thing. When unions, I think, get off track is when they start to influence public policy, especially with regard to, need I say it, illegal immigration..... allowing illegal immigration into the country because they want to fill up their ranks.