Posted on 10/09/2007 11:58:39 AM PDT by CounterCounterCulture
Republican Presidential Candidate Debate #8 – Dearborn, Michigan 10/09/07 - Official Discussion Thread
CNBC/MSNBC/The Wall Street Journal are jointly sponsoring the first Republican Presidential debate of the 2008 campaign focusing on economic issues. It will be held on October 9 in Dearborn, Michigan at the University of Michigan-Dearborn at the Ford Community and Performing Arts Center. Broadcast is live on CNBC at 4 PM ET (1 PM PT) and re-broadcast on MSNBC at 9 PM ET (6 PM PT). CNBC's Maria Bartiromo and MSNBC's Chris Matthews will host the debate.
Candidates participating:
yea, all the others are in favor of ‘right to work’ stuff and and increased scruntity, but to ‘reapeal all special benefits legislated to benefit unions’ is absolutely radical. I’ve forgotten the specifics, but there are TONS of laws on the books that basically allow parasitic unions to take over entire industries and do it legally and all sorts of other provisions stuck here and there and everywhere in the law benefiting them.
“So, that’s my 2 cents, somewhat dissapointed, maybe we’ll see better next time. :)”
****
As I said, it’s early yet. I’m sure there will be another dozen more debates...ok, maybe I’m exaggerating, but there will be some opportunity to do better. I’m trying my best to keep the faith...I just hope our candidates don’t disappoint. The thought of another 4 years of Clinton (or 4 years of any of the other Democrat/socialist candidates) is enough to make me ill.
>> It’s early. Not a single vote has been cast. Why do you put electability so far ahead of conservatism?
I don’t. I specifically said when (and only when) I am in agreement with multiple candidates on most issues (as I am with Thompson and Hunter), issues cannot be the deciding factor, and electability becomes a prime consideration.
>> If as many people were willing to do the hard work to elect Hunter, instead of settling for the best front runner without even an effort, I could understand.
Why work hard for a candidate that’s way behind when you’ve got an equally acceptable candidate who’s not way behind?
>> When you say, “I like Hunter but...” what you’re saying is it’s way too much time and effort than I’m willing to devote (and when I say “you” I am speaking collectively).
No -I’m saying my time is better spent elsewhere. I see little policy distinction between Thompson and Hunter ... so why waste time, effort and money to catch Hunter up, when Thompson’s already ahead?
H
Glad you caught the drift there. Unintentionally combined work and FReeping. :)
I combine both, primarily to stay out of the staff’s way....(chuckle)
>>> I’ve seen a similar failure to admit flaws from Hunter supporters (for instance, lack of electability) - but that doesn’t seem to offend you.
>> What you have is a “flaw” based on perception. The perception is what is flawed.
With regard to public opinion, perception is reality. The perception that Duncan Hunter is floundering around 1-2% support is not flawed ... it is reality based on scientific polling data. There is simply no indication of a groundswell of support for Hunter.
>> Duncan Hunter was first elected to Congress, defeating an 18-year Democrat incumbent in what was then a safe district for Democrats. History has shown Duncan Hunter to have electability.
And Dennis Kucinich and Ted Kennedy have been repeatedly elected locally ... that certainly doesn’t mean they’re electable on a national scale.
>> Today the scoreboard shows every candidate running for President tied with zero votes received. The score will remain that until the first vote is cast, which isn’t for a few months.
Polling data, fundraising, etc. are means of predicting that outcome. Duncan Hunter is not doing well thus far. You are certainly free to ignore or deny reality for as long as you wish ... but the reality is what it is. Don’t expect fellow conservatives like me to stick our heads in the sand along with you.
>> What you need to do is scare people away from voting for Duncan Hunter is create a perception that Hunter is (quote) “unelectable” (unquote).
First - I don’t create reality ... I just observe it. Second, people aren’t being “scared away” from voting for Hunter ... the vast majority of conservatives weren’t Hunter-voters to begin with. Among the Republican field ... Hunter’s getting 1%. The Republican Party is comprised of FAR more than 1% conservatives. Those conservatives’ consciences are leading them elsewhere - mostly to Thompson ... some to Romney, Huckabee, McCain, and even a few to Giuliani (as I would figure far more than 1% of his 25% support is from genuine conservatives).
>> You need to scare people with what you hope is a self-fulfilling prophecy. And it’s not just you. All the candidate teams have to put out that their candidate is the “only one” capable of defeating Hillary.
“My candidate” is NOT the “only one capable of defeating Hillary” ... but I believe he is the most conservative candidate capable of doing so. I believe Giuliani, Romney, Thompson and possibly McCain or Huckabee have a reasonable shot at beating Hillary. I believe Brownback, Hunter, Tancredo, Paul, Cox and Keyes are wasting their time - and ours.
>> All this gamesmanship pits people voting against their conscience with the most convincing scare tactics.
Who said I was voting against my conscience? It seems supremely arrogant for Duncan Hunter supporters to assume that a conservative’s conscience would necessarily lead him to vote for Duncan Hunter.
>> Mediocrity is unacceptable with our Constitutional rights and civil liberties on the line.
And perfection is unattainable. All candidates are impefect ... some more than others. I’ve yet to see any Hunter supporter give a convincing argument why to pick Hunter over Thompson ... outside of “vote your conscience”. Duncan Hunter didn’t register on my conscience.
H
I noticed the CNBC poll did not include Duncan Hunter????
>> But I would have been much more receptive if the Thompson supporters had not resorted to similar tactics used previously by the Rudy supporters.
It seems somewhat silly to base ANY of your primary voting decisions on the behavior of supporters (with no offical campaign affiliation) on a web board.
>> And, if I am reading you right, you’re saying “only Fred can beat Rudy”.
Thompson is the most conservative alternative with a chance at the nomination. I’d say there are several people with a shot at beating Giuliani - Romney, Thompson, McCain and Huckabee. Thompson is clearly the most conservative choice.
>> We’re all aware that he has a slim chance, but it bugs me that this early people who profess their conservatism toss it aside so early for political expediency.
Nobody’s tossing their conservatism aside for expediency. Thompson is conservative. Hunter is conservative. There is little policy distinction between the two.
Hunter supporters seem to think that Duncan Hunter is the lone ranger of conservatism, that he is somehow the lone conservative representative in a field of RINOs ... and that any conservative with the audacity to support a different candidate is betraying his values and voting against his conscience.
Simply speaking - that’s nonsense. Hunter’s not the only conservative in this race - and he might not even be the best conservative in this race. Given a head-to-head between Hunter and Thompson - where both were equally electable - I’m not sure Thompson wouldn’t be the better choice anyway.
H
That's where we disagree.
I’m not a Paul supporter, but I do like his read on the constitution.
The federal government has strayed so far from it’s intended constitutional duties, when one stands to remind the people what those duties consist of........no one recognizes one iota of what he’s talking about.
Seems to me, the fed’s have morf’d into this huge hungry beast that constantly needs to be fed.
Just my lil ol pinion
POC — what’s your take on this? It always stumps me how the terrorists don’t go after their wealthy neighbors who are becoming so westernized, but instead target US.
Politics would be too damn boring if we could always figure it out. The oil-exporting countries are gathering billions in US dollars because of high prices. Even though most of the Gulf States peg their currencies to the dollar, none of the countries welcome a weak dollar. It's like exporting inflation to these countries. Dubai (UAE), Qatar and even Saudi Arabia are experiencing inflation because of the accumulating petro-dollars (Kuwait, incidentally gave up on the dollar and now pegs its currency to some hybrid formula of dollars, euros and yen), especially in real estate and housing---just look at the prices for Dubai rentals. These countries are seeking HARD assets as a hedge to the inflating dollar. Look for more and more Western asset investments. Remember when Japan ruled the economic world in the 1980s and US politicians went into panic-mode over their USA real estate purchases? (How quickly we forget the flip-side of the great Japanese managed economy.) Regardless, I think the pattern is repeating here. Let's see if the Gulf States handle their Western investments better than the Japenese did. In short, collecting US dollars through export surplus and not spending them seems like a poor strategy. Much better to buy something real like global companies, than simply collect interest from US government securities. I think we survived being a debtor nation for the first hundred years or so of this country's existence, we can probably survive comfortably as a debtor nation for another hundred years---or at least until the worm turns.
As for your question, the terrorists will never change the mind of any people who are creating wealth---and Dubai and the UAE are wealthy countries with wealthy citizens. Al-Qaeda-types would be exposed immediately by the locals if they tried their militant tactics in the Arab Disneyland. Rarely to people involved in wealth-creation have time for ideology. We will beat Al-Qaeda by exporting capitalism, not democracy per se.
PoC
I listened to the debate on XM radio yesterday without the benefit of video. Ron Paul sounds like a little kid. I’m not really a McCain fan but, on radio, he actually sounded better than the rest.
Very cogent and informative .. thanks, POC! Enjoy your stay
in “the Kingdom” ....and stay safe and rrrrrrich... ;)
Sounds like he didn’t “wow” anyone but held his own and showed that he belongs in this race.
Good enough, for now.
Sorry but you made an anti-Christian statement. “Sick of the religious right who want to club you over the head with a bible at the first opportunity”. Not only is the statement factually absurd but Christians don’t make statements like that.
“About 900 miles southeast from the Madagascar chevrons, in deep ocean, is Burckle crater, which Dr. Abbott discovered last year. Although its sediments have not been directly sampled, cores from the area contain high levels of nickel and magnetic components associated with impact ejecta.
“Burckle crater has not been dated, but Dr. Abbott estimates that it is 4,500 to 5,000 years old.”
Source: NY Times.
Recommend you google Burckle crater (in Indian Ocean near Madagasgar) for more information on meteor strike that is estimated to have caused 500-600 ft tsunami and 25 feet of rain world wide.
Who is moderating the next one in this year's line up? Anyone know?...probably freegin' Juan Williams? I say we protest the format/moderator until they can get a Brit Hume or equivalent. A GOP primary debate is for the party.
Reminds me of Ross Perot...
I’m sorry that you took what I said out of context and were offended by it.
I was simply referring to the perception of clueless independent voters (especially younger ones) who think that the GOP and “Republicans” are a bunch of folks who want to beat them over the head with the Bible.
Obviously it’s not true but...Perception is reality.
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.