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

May 15, 2007

[No Blue States]

[txradioguy]

“We did bring Perl Harbor onto ourselves because of our foreign policy.”

Well I think we just figured out Ron Pauls FReeper name.

You’re a CT kook about the two most heinous sneak attacks by a foreign enemy this contry has ever experienced.

[Saundra Duffy]

Romney nailed McCain on campaign finance reform.

[Tolsti]

Ron Paul just said ‘we gave saddam the gas’ and we caused saddam and 9/11. Unbelievable.

[Shortstop7]

I would guess DU.

I’m bummed cause I couldn’t see the debate tonight. Am watching Fox now. Saw Duncan Hunter on, and I really like that guy.

[Darth Republican]

Ron Paul is on FoxNews.

And wading even deeper into the macacca.

[WFTR]

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.

Do you think that no one stood out because no one had an excellent debate or do you think it was because more of the candidates had a pretty good performance this time? While I thought some of them were awkward in trying to force answers that didn't fit the questions, I still think that all of them came across as good men. I lean towards the explanation that no one stood out because they all came across better than they did last time.

Bill

[jveritas]

Here is my ranking of tonight debate:

1. Romney: He acted Presidential, looked Presidential, sounded Presidential, and he delivered great answer “over all”, the best being “Double Guatanamo” prison.

2. Rudy Giuliani: despite his great weakness in answering the abortion question, he got the highlight of the night by putting down this idiot Ron Paul.

3. Mike Huckabee: He is the real surprise, he came off very well.

4. Duncan Hunter: He was good “overall”, however he still lack the “Presidential” aura.

5. John McCain: Performed better “overall” than the last debate.

6. Tom Tancredo.

7. Jim Gilmore.

8. Sam Brownback.

9. Tommy Thompson.

10. Ron Paul is a traitor and a lunatic. It is an insult to have this guy running for the Republican Party nomination. The good news is that after his disgraceful and lunatic answers tonight regarding 9/11 and the war on terror he is finished for ever.

Next debate should only include the Top Six.

[FreeReign]

You don’t like the fact that he wants to address WHY people are upset with us instead of just killing them all Bush style?

These "people" killed 3,000 of my innocent neighbors.

Paul can take his "why" and stick it.

[txradioguy]

Enjoy your brief moment in the sun.

The support for Dr. Paul is about as deep as the kiddie pool at the local park.

[Just Lori]

I agree that RP should be RIP. Total embarrassment!

[WFTR]

Thanks for the kind words!

[James W. Fannin]

Just for the record mister, I don’t agree with Ron Paul on the conclusions he makes on the Mideast, but I'm happy that he was in the debates, and I thank you for speaking your mind here.

[EternalVigilance]

“In seeking the support of the Log Cabin Republican Club, Romney wrote them a letter promising that ‘as we seek to establish full equality for America’s gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent.’ “ [His opponent at the time was Sen. Ted Kennedy, perhaps the foremost advocate of homosexual rights in the U.S. Senate.]
- Boston Globe, 10/17/1994

[The Pack Knight]

I agree. That’s why I’m not voting for him.

[50mm]

Complete meltdown by Paul in the post-debate interview with Hannity. Stick a fork in him - he’s done.

[plain talk]

We’re not cooperating with other countries when we invade them. Invading was what was politically popular at the time the invasions took place, that’s why the President’s actions were easy.

Are you suggesting we should have been cooperating with Iraq and Saddam Hussain instead of invading that country? LOL! You make no sense - like Ron Paul.

[ConservaTexan]

Ron Paul’s out of his mind.

RuPaul should put his dress back on and go back to the 80s.

[M203M4]

You don’t like the fact that he wants to address WHY people are upset with us instead of just killing them all Bush style?

Drat, so much for not getting a good word for him in edgewise anymore! I for one love Ron Paul on every other issue (well, maybe not the gold standard stuff, but I can let that slide). As addressing primary concerns...there aren't any concerns that would would justify an attack like 9/11. As for "killing them all Bush style"...huh? Bush has been soft on the so-called "religion of peace" (he even used that term, and wants to export democracy to them, dumb neocon idea if you know a thing about their culture). If what is wrong with Ron Paul was replaced with what was right with Patton and Churchill, you'd have my ideal candidate. Yes Dorothy, I'd grease the treads of my tanks with bloody towels.

[LibertarianInExile]

“I don’t like the fact that he wants to address why our enemies are upset with us rather than fighting them”

Let me know when he says anything like that. I have yet to hear him say we shouldn’t fight our enemies. I have heard plenty of spin from the Rudyites that anyone opposing Bush’s latest strategy must believe that, but one only needs think for a second to realize that Bush’s war plans aren’t the ideal and haven’t been since “Mission Accomplished.”