Posted on 10/28/2009 6:56:43 PM PDT by Bokababe
GOP gubernatorial hopefuls Steve Poizner and Tom Campbell will field questions from the Twitterverse tonight at what's being billed as the nation's first major political debate to integrate questions from the micro-blogging platform.
Four of the 12 questions selected for the 75-minute debate, which is co-moderated by Brandman University professor Mike Moodian and Bee columnist Dan Walters, were chosen from a pool of about 100 questions submitted via Twitter.
"We were basically looking for general trends," Moodian said, noting that the topic for the debate is California's ongoing fiscal crisis. "We chose some questions that certainly were unique, but we wanted questions that were going to represent what was on the minds of citizens of California."
The deadline for submitting questions has passed, but organizers have left the door open for Twitterati to interact with candidates during the debate, which will be webcast at this site starting at 7 p.m.
(Excerpt) Read more at view.exacttarget.com ...
Don’t have Twitter but could you all give us here at Free Republic a basic feel for the debate?
Four of the 12 questions selected for the 75-minute debate, which is co-moderated by Brandman University professor Mike Moodian and Bee columnist Dan Walters, were chosen from a pool of about 100 questions submitted via Twitter.
Personally, if it were my choice alone, I'd go for Campbell because I think he'd go for what's necessary for the State.
Example: Campbell says cut spending first, then cut taxes. Poizner says cut taxes first. But as Campbell pointed out, we've cut taxes before, but the legislature just kept on spending.
Yes, thanks to the link I have been able to sit and watch.
I do believe that Campbell was the sharper of the two...
Thanks again to whoever posted the thread.
Polly....from Los Angeles
My husband ran into Campbell at the grocery store last night. It’s not the first time. He has always been very friendly.
My husband and I don’t agree with his stance’s on some of the issues (gay marriage), but we like him. He seems honest, and that goes a long way these days.
"My husband and I don’t agree with his stance’s on some of the issues (gay marriage), but we like him. He seems honest, and that goes a long way these days.
I really understand and respect your position on gay marriage and I understand and respect Campbell's position:
"Marriage has both religious and civil consequences. Some religious faiths perform and recognize gay marriages; others do not. These questions are best left to the religions themselves, lest the state government involve itself in an analysis of whether the tenets of any particular church are acceptable or not.
"On the issue of civil consequences, practical issues take precedence. Should one partner be allowed to visit the other in the hospital at times when only 'family' is permitted? If two people grow old together, and one develops Alzheimer's, should we hold that the other is unfit to be the conservator and protector of the one in need, giving legal preference instead to a remote blood-relative? Civil consequences should be the same regardless of whether a couple, committed to a loving and permanent relationship, is of the same or opposite sex.
"I generally favor less rather than more governmental involvement in matters of individual freedom, and this is no exception. Neither government approval nor government disapproval is appropriate. As this proposition calls for government disapproval, I urge its rejection."
Yes, I also think that he is honest -- if he weren't, he'd been talking in generalities instead of the specifics that he states -- and demands from others.
I read an article that said that the difference between Schwarzenegger and Campbell was the difference between "The Governator" and the "The Calculator". Yep, but from some of his positions, Campbell also has a god grasp of ethical human nature, too.
I have to admit that currently the fiscal mess in California is a much more important issue than gay marriage.
I think that Campbell has the business sense to figure out some sensible solutions for California.
He’s smart, and we need someone who is smart. I think he also wants to do right for our state.
BTW, Whitman was invited to debate but declined. Scratched her off the list — permanently.
You’re welcome, Polly.
When and if they post that debate video form, I’ll find it and post it here so people who missed it can watch it.
The debate now in video form is online here, but the program doesn't start until the 15 minute mark so you have to advance the play cursor to that 15 minute mark to see any action.
"My husband ran into Arnold last night. It’s not the first time. He has always been very friendly. My husband and I don’t agree with his stance’s on some of the issues (gay marriage), but we like him. He seems honest, and that goes a long way these days. I have to admit that currently the fiscal mess in California is a much more important issue than gay marriage. I think that Arnold has the business sense to figure out some sensible solutions for California. He’s smart, and we need someone who is smart. I think the Terminator also wants to do right for our state."
Yep. The moldy old' "it doesn't matter if he's a far left kook on social issues cuz what our state needs now is a FISCAL conservative" argument is being recycled from six years ago. So... how many of the "fiscally conservative" RINOs that were elected in the past ACTUALLY governed like they promised? No matter how many times Lucy pulls the football away, some freepers will still kick it.
Who do you think we should support, Meg Whitman. What kind of a record does she have?
How about Steve Poizner?
Of the 3, I prefer Campbell.
When I tried the link, it said that requested info not here.
I agree 100%. Campbell was an economic adviser to Arnie and has called for tax hikes. Therefore, FAIL.
As to him being "friendly", plenty of liberal democrat tax thieves are also very "friendly".
FYI I learned that amongst the TRIO of CA RINOs the one pandering to the right is Steve Poinzer.
Good article on the subject there. Today he blames his rat wife for his donations to the Gore recount committee and is silent about his past love of taxation as he tries to portray himself as the conservative in the race. Myth Romney of Cal?
I’ve met Zoe Lofgren and Mike Honda, and I cannot stand them, especially Lofgren.
I was volunteering in an east San Jose school many years ago before she ran for congress, and she came to check out the program I was with. They video taped me playing the flute for a bunch of kids.
I asked her whether she was a democrat or a republican, and she said something like most city officials are democrats. Why not just say “yes” or “no”. I forgot what else I asked her, and she didn’t give me a direct answer on that.
Campbell always answers questions directly. He’s also very respectful to the people working at the grocery store. I think he gets what is going on with every day people in our state. I think you know what you get with him.
My husband said that Campbell told him that he just came back from the central valley, and he said that unemployment in the central valley is 20%. I get the impression that Campbell is really trying to figure out how to help our state.
Whitman hasn’t been an elected official, so I don’t know what to make of her. Poizner has some questionable background. I’ve never talked to either of them. I would love to meet them and ask them a few questions.
None of them are what I consider conservative. So do I vote third party?
Frankly if all of the GOP candidates are tax-hiking leftists like the disaster Governator then there is no point in electing them. They will do no good, just fight for democrat policy with the added disadvantage that the GOP will get part of the blame for things not improving. If there is going to be a socialist Governor it’s better that it’s not a Republican socialist.
That’s how I feel about it.
An actual moderate Republican is fine with me but not a tax-hiking liberal con artist as all 3 Cali candidates seem to be.
They’re all odiously and offensively unacceptable. Three liberals (not moderates - L-I-B-E-R-A-L-S) who are de facto Democrats and no Conservatives at all. I’ll probably suggest going with the 3rd party AIP person. Ah-nold has been an epic fail disaster, his cutesy F-U letter aside. Gray Davis was well to the right of him on fiscal matters (and apparently, so, too was Jerry Brown !). In fact, Ah-nold makes Davis look like Calvin Coolidge. McClintock was the only qualified person that could’ve put the state back on a sane course, but the RINO establishment preferred incompetent spendthrift Socialists. Sickening.
The way I feel is that Campbell is the best of the three republican candidates, and he is far, far, superior to Jerry Brown or Gavin Newsom.
I really, really, can’t stand Newsom. Brown is very liberal, but I think he is a much more likable character. Newsom is ultra-liberal, cocky SOB.
I also think Campbell will cut spending in our state, and work on bringing businesses back to our state.
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.