Posted on 05/03/2007 3:19:11 PM PDT by CounterCounterCulture
Republican Presidential Candidate Debate #1 – Reagan Library 05/03/07 - Official Discussion Thread
The debate will take place at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California, and will air live on MSNBC from 8:00 to 9:30 pm (ET) and stream live on MSNBC.com and politico.com and will include audience questions gathered on politico.com.
Okay. I laughed out loud. :-)
Ouch!
And I respect Tommy
NOT bad at all. : )
Good analysis CCC. I agree with ya 95%
Eh, not constipated IMO. It's probably because we've already learned about his positions and issues. So he can't really surprise us.
In terms of execution and gravitas, he was very good. Romney and Hunter were the two big winners tonight. But yeah, Rudy did horribly.
He wouldnt answer....
typical
No. His record is the exact opposite of that. And we’re talking about a term in office that just ended, for goodness sakes.
I agree. Nice montage!
“He would not pardon Libby because he was in an administration that got us into Iraq?? What kind of logic is that?”
I couldn’t record it because the wife was watching a recording of that dance with the stars thing she had planned to watch tonight. Did Paul actually say he wouldn’t pardon him under any circumstance?
Or that it would be difficult since Libby was a part of (in his opinion) the deception that lead to the invasion of Iraq?
I am one of those Americans who believes that the WOT leads to SA. Afterall, 15 of the 19 hijackers were from SA. None were from Iraq. That aside, now that we are in Iraq, terrorists are coming to Iraq in droves to defeat us. I believe under this circumstance, we must be victorious in Iraq. Anything less will be a victory for terrorism.
Ron Paul adheres to the Constitution. Therefore, Congress must declare war before we go off to war. As you know, in this case, congress only authorized the war, and did not declare war against Iraq. This is the problem for the President today.
Had he sought a declaration of war against Iraq, and not some ambiguous authorization for war, he would not be in the position he is today with Reid and Pelosi up his arse.
And yes, Ron Paul too, but Ron Paul opposes for another motive not in any way associated with Reid and Pelosi. ie, his faithful adherence to the Constitution. I understand and appreciate that. Since I too believe that we should only send our troops to war upon a declaration of war as required by the Constitution.
Ron Paul should accept the initial violation as beyond his control, to move forward now to insure our success in Iraq against terrorism. At the same time, he should and will obviously continue his undying support for our Constitution that future wars be fought with a declaration of war from congress as is required by our Constitution.
There's the best debate summary. Better the man who ignored the question and answered another. Which many did. And were better for so doing.
Redstate has declared McCain the winner.
http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/who_won_who_lost_first_take#comment
Greetings NeoCaveman:
Concur with a possible Romney presidency. We’re blessed with a very remarkable field of presidental candidates. (With two notable exceptions.)
Cheers,
OLA
You are not going to find a pure-as-the-driven snow conservative anywhere.
Thanks for the info... I mean that.
Ziegler tried to have Thompson bag on Chrissy Matthews...saying that was the equivalent of having Rush Limbaugh moderating a Democratic debate.
Not too much just commenting on the debate :)
Hey Roodie....
The Islam religion was founded by Mohammed in the seventh century. In 622 he founded the first Islamic state, a theocracy in Medina, a city in western Saudi Arabia located north of Mecca. There are two branches of the religion he founded.
The Sunni branch believes that the first four caliphs--Mohammed's successors--rightfully took his place as the leaders of Muslims. They recognize the heirs of the four caliphs as legitimate religious leaders. These heirs ruled continuously in the Arab world until the break-up of the Ottoman Empire following the end of the First World War.
Shiites, in contrast, believe that only the heirs of the fourth caliph, Ali, are the legitimate successors of Mohammed. In 931 the Twelfth Imam disappeared. This was a seminal event in the history of Shiite Muslims. According to R. Scott Appleby, a professor of history at the University of Notre Dame, "Shiite Muslims, who are concentrated in Iran, Iraq, and Lebanon, [believe they] had suffered the loss of divinely guided political leadership" at the time of the Imam's disappearance. Not "until the ascendancy of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1978" did they believe that they had once again begun to live under the authority of a legitimate religious figure.
LOL! John is funny. He’s from and used to broadcast out here. I’ve met him, but my brother knows him pretty well! We miss him.
Oh well - dear Tommy - you were good once. He was, wasn’t he? When he first got into the governorship, he did some good things, correct? But tonight he looked down at the floor the whole night. Gilmore and Romney came across as competent ex governors with good ideas and, Gilmore’s claim, a good record. I just don’t know enough about their record in office and I doubt Romney could do much in Massachussetts but would like to learn more.
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.