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.
Libby’s charges had nothing to do with uranium or Iraq. He was charged with perjury. Paul said he shouldn’t be pardoned because of Bush’s Iraq policy? Even for a rules-based idiot like Paul it was quite a stupid statement for him to make.
NO. They didn't...
Please don't cut and paste that long nonsequitur.
Short and to the point. Congress authorized the use of force against a defined enemy.
Congress declared war.
In principle, Ron Paul stood head and shoulders above the rest, primarily because he used the Constitution a basis for his answers.
He deserved a standing ovation for replying to the question about Bill Clinton the White House with
His plans to stop the income tax are endearing and appealing.
Ron is right.
“Got a date in mind?”
I’m not exactly sure what you mean. I was asking Eternal Vigilance if he had any record of him supporting pro-abortion causes after he claimed to be pro-life. He was able to provide me with a link, though.
:)
I believe Romney has always been pro-life in his heart but when he ran against Kennedy in '94 he took the politically expedient road to try to win in a heavily Democrat state.
When he ran for governor he made a promise to leave intact existing law but promised to not expand abortion - he did just that.
Bottomline for me: Pols are....pols. Often they take positions that do not match their personal beliefs but that is part of the game.
What I have seen from Romney over the last 6 years is that he made promises and he kept them. That is all I can ask for.
Yes he did. I look forward to hearing him in future debates.
My opinion of Duncan Hunter has not changed. I thought he appeared very Presidential, and completely in charge of his subject - But he received, I think, only three questions directed only to him for the 90 minutes he was on stage. As I feared, I think Matthews ignored him - he even skipped over Hunter when the question was open to all ten candidates. I think he was disappointed because of that. Matthews obviously broke the rules.
Other than Hunter, I liked Brownback. They are the two true conservatives on the panel.
A little while back on Fox, he was talking about immigration and mentioned securing the border but deftly avoided talking about interior enforcement or what he would like to see done with the 20 - 30 million illegals that are already here. THAT’S the part that scares me - another amnesty...even an ‘amnesty lite’ type iniative labeled as some sort of ‘guest worker’ program which is, frankly, where Fred leans juding from his past record.
Question How number of the candidates if asked tonight would they try to over turn Roe vs wade would answer yes?
Maybe he is exhausted.
I noticed that he looked extremely thin - his wrists looked very thin & he didn't seem to fill out his suit.
Thanks for the heads up. Not the only issue, but certainly one of the top issues.
I really liked Brownback as well tonight. If Hunter had to leave the race for whatever reason, Brownback would most likely be my choice, especially if Fred is not in.
sorry,about my question,meant to say the number of candidates or how many candidates would say they would try to overturn Roe vs Wade.
well said
That’s funny! I always like that sign. But it is funny because it is on the desk of a man who has zero possiblity of being the candidate, so isn’t that a form of stealing.
Peachy. Except for two little things: One, the promises were made to the radical Left. And two, once he didn't need them anymore, over the side they went.
To: AliVeritasNah . . . tattoo on the forehead.
1,308 posted on 05/03/2007 8:20:33 PM CDT by rightwingintelligentsiaTo: AliVeritasTatoos on the forehead!
Do you, perchance, have trouble reading? Everything I posted is FACTUAL. You 'saying' that Congress declared war is not the same as them actually doing so. The constitution is VERY cut and dried about what constitutes and Act/Declaration of War and as well as which body of government is charged with doing so. Congress abdicating their responsibility in no way negates the fact that they did NOT actually declare a war and do NOT have the constitutional authority to play pass the buck. Period.
perhaps that is how we became the world’s only superpower
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.