Republican Presidential Candidate Debate #2 - Columbia, SC 05/15/07 - Official Discussion Thread

May 15, 2007

[CounterCounterCulture]

Republican Presidential Candidate Debate #2 – Columbia, South Carolina 05/15/07 - Official Discussion Thread

Watch live coverage of the First-in-the-South Republican Party Presidential Candidate debate on FOX News Channel and FOXNews.com on Tuesday, May 15, at 9 p.m. EDT (6 p.m. PDT).

• Sam Brownback
• Jim Gilmore
• Rudy Giuliani
• Mike Huckabee
• Duncan Hunter
• John McCain
• Mitt Romney
• Ron Paul
• Tom Tancredo
• Tommy Thompson

The 90-minute debate will air from 9 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. ET (6 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.) and will be moderated by "Special Report" anchor Brit Hume. Questions will be posed by two panelists — "FOX News Sunday" host Chris Wallace and White House correspondent Wendell Goler.

[HoundsTooth_BP]

You mean the bay of pigs where we failed to give the support we promised?

Covert ops work better than occupying a whole nation when fighting a loose band of terrorists.

[James W. Fannin]

Agree, Mitt Romney won :)

You would say that.

[Darth Republican]

Have my accountant authorize money for another 50,000 text message votes for Ron Paul.

[LibertarianInExile]

“Who else would have organized people to “text” at 11:15 PM besides George Soros?”

And you call Paul a moonbat. ROFLMAO!

[MountainFlower]

realistic is this.... if you have a candidate who does NOT value the life of the unborn, they will not value the lives of their countrymen OR the lives of their troops! what have you seen in the DEM party, which taut abortion?? pull the funding of the troops! who cares about the borders!

in essence, the candidate with the BACKBONE to stand on the PRO-LIFE Issue strongly will have the strength and the backbone to do what is right for the country and values the lives of all under his responsibility.

the plain and simple of it! someone i know once stated the Pro-Life issue is a litmus test...actually i think it needs to be coupled with gambling to be the real moral litmus test.

That is being realistic.

[Rick_Michael]

"HOW DO YOU KNOW YOU WILL VOTE FOR HIM?"
Where does he stand on the issues that are important to you?
Do you know? Because, I certainly do not."

Well, I've been keeping tabs of his comments and his past actions. There are many here that have a vast amount of information to give to you....I'd say look at any Fred thread, and you'll find a link with various things to look through.

This might help: Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Reference

Am I 100% certain? No. I'd say I'm about 65% certain I would support him over most of the candiates. Personally I waver towards Hunter, but in practicality and in a sense principle...I like more of Thompson's opinions. I would gladly support Hunter as VP. I think they would make an excellent team.

Their views are extremely important and in a sense I think they could have discussions similiar to the great John Adams and Thomas Jeffersons. Views that will conflict at times, but will ultimately help this country.

[K-oneTexas]

Titanic Steward: “Calling Mr Paul. Calling Mr Paul. Deck chair ready with blanket on the port side.”

[VU4G10]

1. TANCREDO

2. HUNTER

..
..

[mylife]

definately not a contender

[EternalVigilance]

The Boston Globe reported the below:

In 2002, Romney responded to the National Abortion Rights Action League's candidate survey: "I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's. The truth is, no candidate in the governor's race in either party would deny women abortion rights." Notably, Romney refused to answer the candidate questionnaire sent to him by Massachusetts Citizens for Life.

Is it true?

Mitt Romney vigorously defends his status as a long-time champion for the pro-abortion cause

[calcowgirl]

I agree,many think the far right republicans are going to over turn roe vs wade,reality check it’s not going to happen,or make some strong stance against the gay community,another reality check,it’s not going to happen.I’m going with the man who can protect us and will win in 08 RUDY!

So you're a pro-choice, pro-gay-rights voter?

[Political Junkie Too]

I think it's hysterical that the poll is being antifreeped. Maybe this will put an end to the reliance on these things by the MSM.

-PJ

[Reaganesque]

Vote early, vote often, eh? ;-)

[SevenofNine]

WHAT now that weird support 2 amendant you also support ban on assault weapons ban

I don’t get it MITT

[Sprite518]

I think most Freepers realize this... After tonight no one will really care about this poll.

[Swordfished]

I saw nobody standing out as Mitt did in the last one. I’m waiting for Fred to get in this race. If not, then Newt. I like Hunter as the v/p.

I agree with the observation that nobody stood out. My other observations:

Rudy's like oil and vinegar - it's just not going to happen.

Ron Paul's the true conservative up there but voters don't understand or care for true conservatism (paleo-conservatism).

Huckabee went up a few notches in my book but seems too soft to go up against a raving liberal.

Tancredo did pretty well but he's probably the 2nd least electable, Tommy Thompson being the first.

Romney gained a bit but not much. Had the most detailed and interesting arguments (behind Paul).

Hunter was impressive, but like another poster said, always looks angry - maybe not dynamic enough - needs to show more range.

McCain is just a non-starter...he's riding his name-recognition as far is it will take him I guess.

Gilmore has the opposite problem of Hunter - looks too happy or sheepish all the time. Decent points though.

Brownback - speaks like Gore - too emotional, and therefore the most sincere.

Thompson - unmemorable

[xjcsa]

I like Huckabee, but, I like Gingrich and Fred Thompson more.

Gingrich is an ecotard John Kerry butt-kisser.

[HoundsTooth_BP]

The politically correctness of how we fight the war is separate and apart from the blustering of our foreign policy. We intervene where we have no need or interest in doing so, then once we’re there we refuse to fight with resolve because of political correctness. Iraq is a perfect example. We have achieved nothing by going there and we’re so afraid of offending someone or hurting some “innocent” that we refuse to fight.

[LibertarianInExile]

I got a kick out of the post above that ‘only the eeeeevil George Soros could be behind this!’ These people SLAY me.