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:
He may not get the State of Iran if HilaryCare is running, but he has a lock on the State of Insanity!
Pray for W and Our Troops
The debate doesn’t start for another hour here on the West Coast, so I still have it to look forward to. Glad to hear that our man did well. ;)
I think it’s silly for the Thompson/Hunter supporters to be attacking each other. They are our 2 top candidates running so let’s stop the hate. We get enough of that from the looney libs. When you attack the “other” candidate, that’s exactly who you sound like. Agree to disagree, just focus on the strong/weak points of the candidate and leave the personal attacks to the commies.
You didn’t answer my question.
And I’ve seen your posts enough to know the answer before I asked it.
You have a lovely evening also.
As I said - they flock, not to tear down Hunter, but to rally conservative support around a single, electable conservative candidate.
***Baloney.
Hunter isn’t the only conservative in the race ... there are equally conservative candidates with a FAR better shot at winning this thing.
***Hunter is the only real social conservative in the race. Lotsa people like to call themselves conservative. Look at Rudy. But that doesn’t make them conservative.
Is it not possible that a “conservative” would support someone other than Duncan Hunter?
***Yes, of course. But what is it that compels these people who like to call themselves “conservative” to tear down social conservatives on a social conservative forum? It’s bad manners in the least.
If not, there are ridiculously few actual “conservatives” in this country anymore ... Hunter’s support is negligible.
***Interesting point. Let’s see, where to start. First, you put quotes around the word “conservative” as if it doesn’t “really” mean conservative, because perhaps your chosen candidate is “conservative” and you steal away the meaning of “conservative”. Then you point out that Hunter’s support is negligible. And yet, if you line up Hunter’s positions with those of mainstream America, you see a real match. That means you’re engaging in straw argumentation to make whatever point it was that you wanted to make.
I am socially conservative ... and I don’t support Duncan Hunter. I refuse to dedicate my time and money to a candidate, no matter how perfect, whose chance of getting elected is slightly less than Terry Bradshaw’s.
***We’ve still got a year, and a good example was how far behind Kerry was behind Dean in the democrat race at this point in the cycle last time. No one heard of Jimmah Carter and he bolted out. I don’t mind that freepers don’t want to contribute to what they perceive as a lost cause, but the vulture circling is what doesn’t make sense to me.
>> Focus your efforts on the nonconservative candidates.
United conservatives can eliminate the non-conservative candidates more easily - but conservatives divided among several candidates can be more easily defeated in the primary.
***This is a copout. Plain and simple.
Plus, there aren’t many Rudy supporters here to argue with ... and I grow tired of arguing with the Paul supporters. So - I argue with well intentioned but tragically misguided Hunter supporters.
***Oh, so it’s just a fun game for you. OK, I’ll just try to ignore you then.
>> I am coming to the conclusion that the reason why there is so much invective aimed at Hunter is because people disagree with him.
I’ve seen little issue-disagreement with Hunter on this forum.
***That’s just it. People CLAIM to agree with him on the issues, but they don’t support him. The same thing happened with tootyfruityRudy supporters. If they really did agree on the issues, then why did they make such a big deal about leaving FR and going to WA to set up their socially liberal site? Because they do not own up to the fact that they disagree with us. I am starting to suspect the same is true of Fred Followers. Just look at the Dobson threads lately, and you’ll see the antichristian bigotry poking out its head.
Strategically, however, Hunter is a lousy choice. Conservatism is better served when conservatives unite behind a conservative candidate with a legitimate shot at victory.
***Same stuff, different day. We hear it over & over again that Hunter isn’t electable, you can point it out using different words however you want. Hiding behind strategy is baloney. There are social liberals in the fred camp that are pushing this rift with social conservatives, and y’all can hide behind strategy & electability till you’re blue in the face. If what you were saying were true, you’d be focusing on the non-conservatives in the race like McCainiacs.
However - in either case, I suggest the implementation of Reagan’s 11th commandment (Thou shall not speak ill of a fellow Republican). Lets not rip to shreds our eventual conservative standard-bearer - whether that be Thompson, Romney or Giuliani ... lest we be left with President Hillary Clinton - God help us.
***You’re messing up here. There’s no way EVER that social conservatives are going to line up behind Giuliani as a “conservative standard-bearer”. That shows that you don’t understand the standard that is supposedly being held up.
The globalists, freetraders, and OBL folks are doing everything they can to destroy Hunter--and eliminate his voice from the debate as soon as they can.
You mean that dumb old B actor who made Bedtime for Bonzo. Didn’t he need to take naps all the time since he was too slow and lazy to be President?? Ended up being one of the truly Great minds ever.
I have a feeling Fred’s style will grow on you.
Pray for W and Our Troops
Fair enough. The only three I would consider to be conservatives are Thompson, Hunter and Tancredo. Maybe Brownback but I don’t know too much about him.
I’m not necessarily for Romney...or Thompson, but your comment begs the question. How long did it take you?
No thanks. Romney has Massachusetts values (Youtube)
However, we DO have a new South Park to look forward to tomorrow night. :)
Well, I hate to say it, but most joint MBA/JD degrees are only 3 three years.
I think you are off on this one. Got any examples of this “typical” program?
Hunter came off as a guy looking out for the middle class America guy.
The debate itself was not impressive. It really didn’t do much in my opinion to help choose for a lot of people.
Too may candidates, and the issue was mainly the economy which never is big in a campaign unless the economy is really bad.
There were no outstanding moments other than Paul came off kooky.
If I’ve mistaken you with another who uses the standard “DunkinDonut’ remark, I apologize.
One thing that is for certain. The Thompson supporters have caused me to take a long hard look at all of the other people in the race.
It seems that none of the Fred supporters I have seen can admit a single flaw in the man.
Free trade and "path to citizenship" are two that come to mind.
It’s funny to me that you feel that way. I think one of the biggest & most significant shortfalls of the Bush presidency has been his inability to control the dialogue in regard to pretty much any issue. One of my main goals in selecting a republican nominee is to find someone who can be the “anti” bush in this regard.
“I remember the first time I saw and heard Mitt Romney. It was while he was Mass. Governor. I just thought, wow, this guy should run for president. Image is everything. The guy oozes charisma, not to mention his family life, his beliefs, his knowledge of world issues and the way he conducts himself is just an added bonus. The rest of them can’t compare.”
Eeeesh. How old are you? 12?
“Yikes..that picture’s scary. Can you imagine having to look at that for 4 years?”
Good thing Lincoln isn’t running. Shouldn’t such beauty obsessive such as yourself be reading People or Tiger Beat?
When I looked into it some years ago, an MBA/JD program was generally 4 years. Pepperdine’s still is, Quinnipiac lets you double count 9 hours, so it looks like it would cut off a semester. University of Hawaii At Manoa says their program is 3 to 4 years. You all can research the rest on your own here:
http://programs.gradschools.com/gradschools.taf?_function=detail&school_type=238&split=100&pagenum=1&_UserReference=7F00000146B676D20124356B1CEE470C1542&_start=25
Or you could just keep swapping opinions.
She is the one who keeps dissin’ Jeri Thompson with some of the most childish crap you could imagine...
I am thinking 14...
I too would prefer someone who would govern dispassionately. If this were a monarchy and by some chance we had a choice between two options that would make sense. But, this is a representative republic where voting matters. Therefore, a politician must lead, not only through robotic principle & actions, but through eloquent rhetoric and leadership. Otherwise, the Republican party continues to lose followers.
This country is chock-full of “passionate” political figures ... and its gotten us a bunch of wacko liberals vying for evening-news soundbites and trying to look pretty for the cameras. A “passionate” political scene is one where each side shoots its mouth off, ever escalating the political rhetoric, and continually failing to get anything done.
Conservatism isn’t about passion - its about reasoned Constitutional stances on issues.
That doesn't mean one can't be passionate in their support of reasoned Constitutional stances on issues. Rush Limbaugh is certainly passionate about conservatism.
What people have here cited as a lack of passion from Fred Thompson, I’ve seen as a steadfast, stoic, reasonable approach to American Politics ... and, honestly, just what this country needs after 15-years of constant political sniping during the Clinton and Bush administrations.
Might be, but the country doesn't always know what's good for it.
'Slow and steady' doesn't always win the race, sometimes 'slow and steady' gets steamrolled.
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.