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.

[cva66snipe]

That’s Jimmy Carter thinking, that led to Iran being our blood-enemy

No our policy before Carter led to that. Carter just happened to be POTUS when it came back to bite us. And no I'm not a Carter supporter. Ford Policy had more to do with it actually. He is the one who said in effect to heads of M.E. states go ahead and Support terrorism we won't kill you for it.

[the OlLine Rebel]

I haven’t been on this thread until now, and I didn’t watch much of the debate (I was not feeling well, for 1 thing).

But I was watching when Ron Paul made these statements, as well as Rudy’s response.

I can’t believe Paul made such comments. They not only sound anti-war, they sound illogical.

Trying to tie it in with the Founders. The Founders (at least Washington, the greatest) DID think it was better to stay away from foreigners, but NOT because they wanted to view them as friends as Paul implied. Washington and others had more a DISTRUST of the foreign nations generally, of what the US would be dragged into. And rightfully so (I’m all for non-entanglement, as Washington espoused in his formerly famous farewell address).

But a) this wasn’t just for fun and b) we didn’t do anything to provoke it and c) we’re there now, so it’s moot, and should finish the job - if we do it right.

Of course I could argue on c) - I say by the Founders’ thoughts all we need to do is bomb the hell out of them and get out. There is no moral obligation to “help” them get on their feet. That only happened since WWII. If you’ve been attacked, there is nothing wrong with attacking back - and leaving without lifting a finger. What we’ve done since WWII is very NICE, not obligatory.

Anyway, bottom line, Ron Paul sounded too moonbatty about this for me. I’m all for kicking out the UN, but these statements about the war were off.

[neverhillorat]

When and how did Ford say that?

[Tennessee Nana]

“our policy before Carter led to that. Carter just happened to be POTUS when it came back to bite us”

And Reagan brought that epic affrontment to an end without saying a word.

Remember? The hostages were freed on Jan 20, 1981, at 12 Noon....

[cva66snipe]

When and how did Ford say that?

Ford wrote an E.O. prohibiting the assination of foreign heads of state. Now watch the numbers here Given a few years for them to establish such states the numbers began skyrocketing by early 1980.

[cva66snipe]

And Reagan brought that epic affrontment to an end without saying a word.

Yea I also remember his missle coming down Mommars tent and the silence afterward. It didn't take a war just a will. Saddly enough on this though Reagan like Carter signed a simuliar E.O. Reagan was wise enough to see it as being futile.

[The Pack Knight]

I pretty much agree with your points. The reason I said Rudy won is because his best tactic is to keep the war and 9/11 fresh in voters' minds, and to keep social issues out of them. I think last night helped accomplish that. That was a good point that both Giuliani and Paul are looking for crossover appeal. Giuliani is at odds with most Republicans on more positions than Paul is, but Paul is on the most important one. The war issue might not be enough to get voters to ignore Giuliani's faults, but it's certainly important enough that Paul, regardless of his other virtues, is toast so long as he's the "antiwar" candidate.

As for the rest, the big problem Romney has is that, while he has some 86% or so name recognition in South Carolina, he's still in the 8% range in the polls. He's been spending all kinds of money there, and running a lot of ads. Evidently it isn't amounting to much. It seems to me that he needs to keep dominating and looking more presidential than the other candidates to make any headway. He really failed to do that last night.

The reason he needed to do that is because of Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich. Both are still polling ahead of Romney, not only nationwide, but in South Carolina where he's been campaigning relentlessly. If Romney doesn't get some committed voters before either of them get in the race, he's done for.

Also, even though this debate was much better than the first, I still think Fred and Newt gain from staying above the fray. Newt is right on the money when he says these debates look more like a reality TV show than a forum for Presidential politics. It's a great forum for the lesser-known candidates to introduce themselves to a national audience (such as it was). It's not so great a forum for the big guys, as it brings them down to the level of the second-tier, and it's a forum where they can't use their money and organization to frame the debate. It exposes their flaws, forces them to mix it up with candidates they're better off ignoring, and diminishes their Presidential image in general.

By staying above the fray, Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich, Fred especially, actually look more like "frontrunners" than the actual candidates leading the polls. I agree that they can't keep doing this forever, but for now, they seem to have the best strategy.

[amutr22]

Silly is thinking today anyone of those candidates,except Rudy, can beat Hillary.
+++++++++++
Absolutely.

[elizabetty]

Ron Paul could actually rise from the pack of the second-tier.

Not after the "US deserved and brought on 9/11" remark. I knew one person willing to consider Paul as his candidate and now he wants to strangle him.

[George W. Bush]

I knew one person willing to consider Paul as his candidate and now he wants to strangle him.

It's all pretty good. I'm laughing at Michael Steele now. He's been trying to peddle Huckabee as the "replacement" for Ron Paul. And he's peddling the urgency for the GOP in eliminating all the "smaller" candidates in the next few weeks, an indication that the GOP boot will fall very quickly on Tancredo and Hunter and the others.

It would be easier if the GOP elite just made a little crown (or tiara) for Rudi and announced he was our nominee. I suppose the drama is expected to drag on. And they might allow the scum faithful party base to vote for Fred Thompson instead. Maybe.

[The Pack Knight]

Oh yeah, and as a follow up to that last point...

While I was typing that, I heard a commercial for tonight's On the Record with Greta, and Newt's the main guest. A possible announcement is being hyped.

Won't happen, of course, at least not on her show. However, if Newt has decided to run, can you think of a better time to announce than right after a debate? Today, for example, he could neutralize whatever bump Rudy is going to get for tearing into Paul, as well as any other real gain any of the other candidates made at the debate. He'd completely crowd out the news-junkie cycle. It sounds more like something Newt would do than Fred, but it could be very effective.

I is looking a little like Newt is going to reneg on his earlier promise to wait until September to make any decision.

[George W. Bush]

While I was typing that, I heard a commercial for tonight's On the Record with Greta, and Newt's the main guest. A possible announcement is being hyped.

Probably Greta ran out of dead blonds to justify those Aruba travel vouchers and is looking for some ratings.

Really, Newt could appear in drag (or in the nude) and I couldn't be less interested at this point. After he went Greenie-weenie and made himself John Kerry's debate-bitch, I don't see the attraction for anyone with a conservative bone in their body. And no one else ever liked Newt anyway. So what would be the point of him running?

Newt and Tommy Thompson (and possibly Gilmore and Huckabee) are all VP candidates, IMO. Remember, VP is no longer a meaningless and forgotten job. In both parties, VP's now do more than wait for their next foreign funeral booking.

[George W. Bush]

As for the rest, the big problem Romney has is that, while he has some 86% or so name recognition in South Carolina, he's still in the 8% range in the polls. He's been spending all kinds of money there, and running a lot of ads.

He can't break through the Baptist prejudice against his Mormonism or the vets pre-existing affection for McStain, one of their own generation. And Mitt probably can't help look slick (at least in SC) with his good hair and chiseled features and that smooth Harvard MBA/JD CEO image. A shame when such extensive personal success in education and business (and virility in family life) actually becomes a political liability.

[The Pack Knight]

Really, Newt could appear in drag (or in the nude) and I couldn't be less interested at this point.

If a Nielssen family gouges out their eyes en masse, does that count for negative ratings points?

Seriously, though, I'm not very interested in voting for Newt, either, but he is polling rather well, and without Fred in the race, he might think he has a chance. He might even be right.

It'd be a shame, I think, since it'd take the air out of Hunter's campaign, which finally seems to be getting a little mainstream recognition and who I, personally, am starting to warm up to.

[George W. Bush]

If a Nielssen family gouges out their eyes en masse, does that count for negative ratings points?

You would think so. But when a crossdressing leftwing mayor is your frontrunner, all bets may be off.

[jmc813]

It sounded like he didn't want folks walking around with concealed sawed off shot guns.

How do you conceal a shotgun?

[CounterCounterCulture]

Amazing. Ron Paul has dominated the conversation on this thread and has moved into the lead of a party that can’t find itself. I’m shocked to see Free Republic Republicans on the defensive like this.

I don't see FR Republicans being defensive. I see them as being outraged by Paul's comments on international affairs, the war on terror and the Iraq war. That's not to say there isn't room for analysis and critique of our foreign policy, but his demeanor is much like outrageous comments by Murtha, Pelosi, Reid, Cindy Sheehan et al.

I also don't see Paul as moving to the lead of the Republican Party. Real polling should show little change to his low numbers. On-line polls are meaningless when Democrats and like-minded third-parties and independents are voting for him en masse.

[acapesket]

You can call me anything you want but I strongly believe that through the 527 system Soros is attempting to subvert this country. He personally finances Move on.org, as well as several others, donates money to La Raza and other anti- American groups. His minions are behind most of this crap and they are well known for their tactics.

[Tennessee Nana]

I said— “And Reagan brought that epic affrontment to an end without saying a word.”

To which you said— “Yea I also remember his missle coming down Mommars tent and the silence afterward. It didn’t take a war just a will. Saddly enough on this though Reagan like Carter signed a simuliar E.O. Reagan was wise enough to see it as being futile”

You didnt read my whole comment..I was referring to the day Reagan was sworn in as POTUS...Reagan did not do or say anything... just showed up..

The Iranians had already announced that on Jan 20, 1981 aT 12 Noon the hostages would be released...

[Tennessee Nana]

Here ya go My comment from #2904

You had said “our policy before Carter led to that. Carter just happened to be POTUS when it came back to bite us”

So I said

“And Reagan brought that epic affrontment to an end without saying a word.

Remember? The hostages were freed on Jan 20, 1981, at 12 Noon....”

Reagan was sworn in as POTUS at that time.. The Iranians knew he was a man to be reckoned with.. a strong leader of the fr4ee world who would brook no nonsense from the Islamic Terrorists..

BTW Reagan did go on from that day to demand that the Communist built wall that divided the city of Berlin come down..and he saw the destruction of that wall be accomplished..and the “Iron Curtain” across Eastern Europe was “torned down”..