My Night At The Orlando Fox News Presidential Debate

I am going to post just a small review of my night with 23 Republicans at the Fox News Orlando Republican Presidential Debate.

Luntz was angry early on before camera's went live when he polled the group to make sure everyone there was undecided. A 21 yr old guy raised his hand and said he was supporting Ron Paul. Luntz absolutely lost it on this kid and said "Why in the hell did you not put that on your questionaire that was e-mailed to you? Why does it not shock me that a Ron Paul supporter would pull this kind of crap?"

"If someone else shows up you are being replaced and out of here...this room is for undecided."

I was originally placed in the second row towards the end of the row next to a man named Fred Hawkins Jr. who is running for Osceola County Commissioner. Luntz asked us a bunch of questions with a camera crew and producers in tow behind him and I was the first to answer. I was the first person to use the word "socialism" and it spread like wild fire.

I said the concept of America voting a socialist like Hillary Clinton as President should be motivation enough for Republicans to get their act together. I reminded Luntz of the Hillary quote saying "This is the same woman who is quoted by the San Francisco Chronicle saying "We will have to take things away for the common good." Luntz had this smirk on his face and he knew I handed him gold.

After 3 segments it was time to go live. By the time you saw what you did at home we had already gone through 3 rounds of questions and I was lighting up the joint with what I call the biggest crisis this campaign.

What do any of these men who are running for President plan on doing to combat the extreme hatred of anyone who is a Republican by the mainstream media and how bad the liberal blogs, Soros, and just about everyone who has some sort of journalistic power slimes Republicans on a daily basis. Who is going to have the spine to stand up to it and how do they plan on doing it when the Bush Administration has been knocked out time and time again with no fight.

WHO IS GOING TO PREVENT THE PERCEPTION THAT REPUBLICANS ARE NOT WAR MONGERING NAZI'S WHO ARE OUT FOR OIL COMPANIES AND THE RICH?

Luntz definitely told us through his polling and research that as of today Hillary Clinton will win in a landslide. He was putting all of his money on her. I said you are going to go broke. He said Republicans are too disorganized and the focus group proved that.

I said not it does not. I said if you want to see motivation and organization? Put Hillary Clinton against any Republican and you will see Republicans vote like you have never seen before, the alternative is too grave. Whether we can stand it or not Republicans will do everything in their power to elect anyone else but Clinton.

You saw my exchange later on saying we have long memories and do not want to live through that hell again.

The Ron Paul comment I made was simple and sweet and every single person except the Ron Paul supporter all said "perfect" with regards to that remark.

Luntz walks over and says "you are good...you are going down to the front row...keep talking."

We taped about 70 mins worth of discussion. More clips will be aired at 6:20 AM on Fox and Friends First and then 8:20 AM on Fox and Friends. Then more clips from the debate will be aired on tomorrow's Hannity and Colmes as well from 9-10.

I called out the room at the end of it all..when I saw how many people put their hands up that Rudy was the only one who could beat Hillary I said "I am really saddened to see how many people think he is their answer. That is very telling that the fire that was there earlier tonight for all of us agreeing that we want a true Conservative is gone already and that makes me sick as a true Conservative."

To me the top winners tonight were Romney, Huckabee, Thompson, and blech...I hate to say this but Rudy. His night was not that bad but he certainly is not my top choice for President.

I called for a thining of the herd. Paul, Tancredo, and Hunter need to go. They virtually played zero in the room. It was sad because I really like Tom and Duncan and said that if a Republican wins the White House in 2008 they should all be given cabinet posts ASAP.

Except Paul...which who by the end of the night lost his one supporter...the 21 yr old guy who didn't raise his hand when asked if anyone supported him.

Finally...Luntz. A nice guy but can be insulting. When he compared a moderate conservative to a major serious conservative he wanted a show of hands...then he added "When I say major serious conservative I mean you can hear the German Nazi marching bands and get excited", I then said to him "There it is..exactly what I was talking about." Luntz said "Relax I was only joking." I said "I know you were and it is that kind of talk that I am absolutely disgusted by and sick of...sick of it Frank...enough is enough with the nazi conservative comparisons people have got to speak up for conservatives...true conservatives."

That in a short capsule is it. Met some really nice people and we had a discussion at the end of everything and went our own ways.

I thank Luntz for letting me say whatever I wanted to on camera and speak up for Conservatives and letting me call Ron Paul out on global television.

My thoughts extend to the desire for an opportunity for strict constructionists to be appointed to the bench at the Federal level.

When I stated my belief that a Hillary presidency would insure as many abortions as possible (a notion which you summarily dismissed as "crap"), I was talking about what she'll do to the SCOTUS is she gets the chance. (Remember! To the Clintons, 43% of the popular vote is a mandate.)

With a Hillary presidency, we have her assurances:

"It is time for a new court."

There is no doubt what she means by that. Kennedy votes with the constructionists far too often for her liking, and she will appoint more Breyers and Ginsburgs, assuring a long, long life for Roe.

With Rudy, there is an opportunity for constructionists. He has stated that he will appoint justices in the mold of John Roberts. He has stated that he is "okay" with the overturning of Roe.

Do I believe him? I don't know..but this means that the chances exist for less abortion under Rudy. This means the chance exists for less infanticide under Rudy. This means that the chance exists for the overturning of Roe under Rudy.

These chances do not exist under a potential Hillary presidency. No matter what Congress does to mitigate abortion, Hillary will veto the measure and Congress will not be able to override...at least not in the first two years of her presidency...probably not ever.

I'll take chances for life over assurances of death any day...particularly in the short term. The long term strategy of waiting for Hillary's popularity to nosedive after two or three years is the anti-active stuff of pipedreams.

I want Fred Thompson to be our nominee. If he's not, the seeds you and others are sowing here have the potential to do irreversible long-term damage to the country. As soon as The Electoral College is abolished and Socialized Medicine is enacted, conservatives can kiss their wishes for smaller government goodbye. A new Reagan Dawn will be postponed by decades.

You don't need a crystal ball to see it. You just need to be able to play a little chess.

Dear Chunga,

“My thoughts extend to the desire for an opportunity for strict constructionists to be appointed to the bench at the Federal level.”

I understand. But I disagree with your conclusions.

“There is no doubt what she means by that. Kennedy votes with the constructionists far too often for her liking, and she will appoint more Breyers and Ginsburgs, assuring a long, long life for Roe.”

I suspect that Mrs. Clinton will be able to nominate moderate liberals to the Supreme Court, who will continue to uphold Roe.

“With Rudy, there is an opportunity for constructionists. He has stated that he will appoint justices in the mold of John Roberts. He has stated that he is ‘okay’ with the overturning of Roe.”

If a con man tells you that he isn’t conning you in the current con game that he’s playing, I suppose that you could say, “It’s POSSIBLE that he isn’t conning me any longer,” but I wouldn’t base many decisions thereupon.

Mr. Giuliani has a long history both of support of abortion as a constitutional “right” and of appointing liberal judges, some very, very liberal indeed.

I believe that he will continue to do as he’s done. I don’t believe for a moment that he’s going to appoint “strict constructionists” who think that Roe should go.

You certainly may believe him, if you wish. I think it’s a con.

Thus, I think that as president, Mr. Giuliani will appoint judges and justices every bit as liberal as Mrs. Clinton will appoint, and perhaps even more so.

Beyond that, as president, Mr. Giuliani WILL destroy the Republican Party as a vehicle for social conservatism for decades into the future.

When I weigh things out, I’m willing to say that there is perhaps a 1% chance that Mr. Giuliani will not appoint liberal pro-Roe justices.

Remember, though, that overturning Roe is just the beginning of the race. It will be a Pyrrhic victory if Roe is overturned, but there is no longer a conservative party to advance the cause of life legislatively.

I think that there is a 95%+ chance that Mr. Giuliani will steer the Republican Party far to the left, at least in terms of social issues, and likely in terms ultimately of fiscal policy as well (it's tough to be a social liberal and a fiscal conservative in the long run). I think that if he manages to serve two mildly “successful” terms, that the Republican Party will no longer be a party of the social right. It may be possible to recover the party over the course of a decade or two or three. Or not.

I won't vote for a baby killer for president.

sitetest

Dear Chunga,

“But you may be willing to enable one:

“In order to take the real moral high ground regarding abortion and its potential outworking in either a Clinton or Giuliani presidency, one must reach the conclusion that there will be a potential for less abortions during one or the other...because in the event of their respective party nominations, one or the other will be elected president.”

False.

I don’t know if there will be more abortions or fewer abortions whether either Mr. Giuliani or Mrs. Clinton are elected, during their respective term of office.

Abortions declined during the presidency of Mr. Clinton. One might argue that they would have declined further if he hadn’t been elected. I’m agnostic on the point. I could argue it either way. I think that a lot of folks tolerated Mr. Clinton as president because they think he did a tolerable job, but were repulsed by his obvious moral squalor. In that case, one could argue that his bad example caused at least some folks to take heed.

As well, if a Democrat-controlled Congress made noises about, say, general federal funding of abortion, I don’t believe that Mr. Giuliani would resist. Seeing the leader of the party going along for the ride would likely embolden the pro-murder elements of the Republican Party. The pro-life elements of the Republican Party, already diminished in power by the fascists in the party who would point to the Giuliani victory as “proof” that people are generally pro-abortion and that pro-lifers and social conservatives should be thrown out of the party, might not be able to successfully oppose such legislation.

Thus, general federal funding of baby-killing for poor women would likely pass the Congress, and would certainly be signed into law by President Giuliani (* spit *).

On the other hand, the Republican Party would rally round restrictions on federal funding of abortion just for the politics of opposing President H. Clinton.

Thus, I think one can make the case that there would be fewer with Mrs. Clinton. I think that one can also make the opposite case.

But that isn’t what I’ve argued.

Rather, my belief is that the eventual demise of the legal regime of abortion on demand generally throughout the United States will be substantially delayed by the election of Mr. Giuliani than by the election of Mrs. Clinton.

If it’s Giuliani vs. Clinton, honest, mindful social conservatives will be forced to admit: we’ve already been defeated. The cause of the unborn, the cause of families, the cause of decency will have received a body blow, a huge setback. No matter which one of these baby killers win, we, and unborn babies, will have already lost. A liberal will be president. No matter what.

It will be time to look to the future, to a time when neither of these baby killers is president. It will be a time to think of a long-term strategy to recover from the blow of the election of either of these baby killers.

My own judgment is that we will be able to rebuild better if the Republican Party is in OPPOSITION TO a baby killer, rather than in CONSPIRACY WITH a baby killer. I think that in the very long term (not necessarily over the next four to eight years), more babies will die, and legal protection of the unborn will be significantly delayed, with the election of Mr. Giuliani.

Honestly, I’m a few years short of 50. If either of these moral horrors is elected president, I think it’s likely that I’ll be dead before the unborn are again generally protected in law.

But if Mr. Giuliani is elected, perhaps even my children won’t see that day, either.

sitetest

The pro-life elements of the Republican Party, already diminished in power by the fascists in the party who would point to the Giuliani victory as “proof” that people are generally pro-abortion and that pro-lifers and social conservatives should be thrown out of the party, might not be able to successfully oppose such legislation.

If you're able to presuppose with such authority under this scenario ("would point to the Giuliani victory as 'proof' that people are generally pro-abortion and that pro-lifers and social conservatives should be thrown out of the party"), why can't you prognosticate with regards to Hillary vs. Rudy and the probability of more or less infanticide should either be elected president?

Rudy has recently said that he wants to "end abortion." Do I believe him? I tell you this: I read between the lines when the Clintons state that they want to keep abortion "safe, legal and rare."

Now there is no equating these two statements; the sentiments expressed are as far apart as day and night. I do not see how a Republican (much less a conservative) can enable Hillary Clinton's election considering that the most liberal GOP candidate in the field has come out with a statement in such opposition to her pro-death declarations. It's frankly astonishing.

Let's turn that one around:

"The pro-death elements of the Democrat Party, already entrenched in power by the fascists in the party who would point to the Clinton victory as “proof” that people are not only overwhelmingly pro-abortion, they are also pro-Communism, anti-war, pro-tax hike, pro-Socialized Medicine, anti-military, pro-growth-in-entitlement-spending and anti-school choice, and that pro-lifers and social conservatives are to be disregarded completely, might be able to successfully pass any legislation they damn well please, since 43% is a mandate."

I honestly don't understand your position. You have laid it out well, but you write as though the Democrat field is populated by George McGovern, Al Gore and John Kerry.

These are the Clintons, sitetest. They are hell-bent on vengeance, destruction, socialism, military defeat and dictatorial power. If you think the Johnson and Carter administrations were disasters, just wait until Hillary's elected with a plurality, and then come find me so I can post an "I-told-you-so" note...if they haven't taken my PC away.

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.