Republican Presidential Candidate Debate #1~ Reagan Library 05/03/07

I’ve got some Illegal Mexican Alien Sangria that someone found in a neighbors marijuana garden up here in the Schwartzenrenegger’s Silly Sierra-Nevada CONswervancy!!!

LOL. Since I didn't see ya much on this thread, can I assume you imbibed a lot of it? ;-)

(just going through my pings and I missed this one--so sorry!)

2,341 posted on 05/03/2007 9:17:40 PM PDT by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)

To: LibertarianInExile

Brownback and Thompson were unintelligible for most of their answers.

2,342 posted on 05/03/2007 9:19:18 PM PDT by pissant

That ‘funny’ would be because he can’t move his arms very well becuase of torture he suffered in Viet Nam.

It's something that I've never noticed in the past when I've seen him speak in various situations. If I think hard, I can remember that he's never been very effective in using gestures when speaking, but I've never noticed the movements being particularly awkward. These movements may point to his heroism and sacrifice for our country, but I think they will hurt him in the campaign. Bob Dole's paralysis of his right arm spoke to his heroism and sacrifice for our freedom, but that paralysis didn't help him with most of the voters. Because Mr. McCain is an older candidate, any sign of poor health is going to hurt him.

Bill

2,343 posted on 05/03/2007 9:20:00 PM PDT by WFTR (Liberty isn't for cowards)

To: EternalVigilance

The rest of the story re Romneys record on guns:

"Governor Romney has always supported that right. In fact, despite a heavily Democratic anti-gun Legislature in Massachusetts, he signed an NRA-backed bill in 2006 (H. 4552) that reduced a testing requirement on certain pistol-makers before they could sell guns in Massachusetts. The Gun Owners' Action League (GOAL), which bills itself as "The Official Firearms Association of Massachusetts," also praised Gov. Romney for his support of H. 4552. "Target shooters are an important part of our membership and I know they will be very pleased with this change," said James Wallace, Executive Director of the Gun Owner’s Action League. (Governor Romney Approves Exemption for Target Pistols, July 26, 2006)"

2,344 posted on 05/03/2007 9:20:01 PM PDT by TAdams8591 (Mitt Romney for President '08)

To: advance_copy

Romney yes, the other to no.

2,345 posted on 05/03/2007 9:21:53 PM PDT by pissant

Maybe Condi will run as a VP.

2,346 posted on 05/03/2007 9:21:57 PM PDT by TAdams8591 (Mitt Romney for President '08)

Here we go. I thought it was an insignificant statement. 60% of Americans don’t support the war in Iraq. Most of them are Democrats. So in a Democrat debate, I doubt that term would be heard. Rooty mentioning that the Dems didn’t use the term “islamic extremists” in their debate, wasn’t a big deal in my opinion. He scored no points.

2,347 posted on 05/03/2007 9:22:06 PM PDT by Reagan Man (FUHGETTABOUTIT Rudy....... Conservatives don't vote for liberals!)

I don't have a candidate yet, but Brownback disappoints me.

Apparently, he shares Romney's view that abortion should be left to the states to deal with, rather than banned nationwide. For some unknown reason, he doesn't believe it is constitutional to federally protect the unborn.

http://brownback.senate.gov/pressapp/record.cfm?id=239563

At least Duncan Hunter is one of the few who seems to have it right, and supports using federal measures to ban abortion once and for all.

2,348 posted on 05/03/2007 9:24:22 PM PDT by Gelato (... a liberal is a liberal is a liberal ...)

Thanks for the link. I read the entire article. His conversion seems a little “miraculous” to me. It seems almost as though it is motivated by politics and a desire to get the Republican nomination for President. He knows he probably couldn’t do it without pro-life conservatives. Also, he still supports embryonic stem cell research with the extra embryos not used in invitro fertilization. He also is opposed to the Human Life Amendment.

2,349 posted on 05/03/2007 9:25:50 PM PDT by Pinkbell (Hunter/Thompson)

Romeny certainly doesn’t strike me as a Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces, while Hunter purely does.

2,350 posted on 05/03/2007 9:29:16 PM PDT by La Enchiladita (Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world. Have mercy on us, and grant us Your peace.)

"I have a feeling Freddy T will be Romney’s running mate when the smoke clears."

Probably likely. All this Morman crap that the MSM puts up is uninformed. All those years ago, if the neighboring father died, his wife and family would get support from other neighbors if they could provide it. That's all it ever was about.

And they didn't have a 7-11 to buy beer and ciggies from down the street like 3 families of illegal aliens living in one apartment do right now.

2,351 posted on 05/03/2007 9:29:22 PM PDT by BobS

Thanks for that. I thought his view of abortion was equal to Hunters. I didn’t realize he wanted it to go back to the states like McCain. Hunter does have it exactly right.

2,352 posted on 05/03/2007 9:30:24 PM PDT by Pinkbell (Hunter/Thompson)

To: tiredoflaundry

It’s just that all of the “official”, major GOP Presidential candidates are the only ones who were invited to this debate as well as for the debate coming up on May 15, and there are 10 candidates participating for both GOP debates already without also including Newt Gingrich, Fred Thompson, and Senator Chuck Hagel.

2,353 posted on 05/03/2007 9:31:58 PM PDT by johnthebaptistmoore

Hmmm, a little more

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/13/politics/main2682034.shtml

(CBS/AP) Republican Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney declined Friday to weigh in on a South Carolina proposal that would require women seeking an abortion to view an ultrasound.

Instead, the former Massachusetts governor said states should make their own abortion laws.

“I would like to see each state be able to make its own law with regard to abortion,” Romney said after a speech to about 50 small business leaders. “I think the Roe v. Wade one-size-fits-all approach is wrong.”

http://franciscanconservative.blogspot.com/2007/04/mitt-romney-anti-roe-but-not-pro-life.html

As the AP reports, Mitt Romney refuses to back pro-life ultrasound legislation in South Carolina.

His reasoning?

“I would like to see each state be able to make its own law with regard to abortion. I think the Roe v. Wade one-size-fits-all approach is wrong.”

As a reader has pointed out in an earlier post, while Mitt Romney is anti-Roe, he certainly is not pro-life. By refusing to support a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution, Romney is rejecting one of the key planks in the platform of the Republican Party that has been there since 1980. Furthermore, he finds himself to the left on life issues of even Sen. John McCain, who supports such an amendment.

Here is the actual text of Mitt Romney’s published Q&A in the Feb. 10th issue of National Journal:

NJ: You would favor a constitutional amendment banning abortion with exceptions for the life of the mother, rape and incest. Is that correct?

What I’ve indicated is that I am pro-life, and that my hope is that the Supreme Court will give to the states over time or give to the states soon or give to the states their own ability to make their own decisions with regard to their own abortion law.

NJ: If a state wanted unlimited abortion?

The state would fall into restrictions that had been imposed at the federal level, so they couldn’t be more expansive in abortion than currently exists under the law, but they could become more restrictive in abortion provisions. So states like Massachusetts could stay like they are if they so desire, and states that have a different view could take that course. And it would be up to the citizens of the individual states. My view is not to impose a single federal rule on the entire nation — a one-size-fits-all approach — but instead allow states to make their own decisions in this regard.

Ok, he wants the states to decide EXCEPT that if a state wanted unlimited abortions, then he wants the feds to speak up. Why not just let the feds deal with it in the first place? It’s like he doesn’t want to take a stand and THAT is NOT pro life. imho

2,354 posted on 05/03/2007 9:32:39 PM PDT by Netizen (If we can't locate/deport illegals, how will we get them to come forward to pay their $3,250 fines?)

Duncan Hunter brought out the fact that we had 155,000 people cross the border from communist China, Iran, Korea, and in this age of terrorism, I don’t know why more candidates aren’t bringing this out.

2,355 posted on 05/03/2007 9:33:42 PM PDT by Sun (Vote for Duncan Hunter in the primaries. See you there.)

Yep, forgot about his comments on the extra embryos.

2,356 posted on 05/03/2007 9:33:58 PM PDT by Netizen (If we can't locate/deport illegals, how will we get them to come forward to pay their $3,250 fines?)

To: George W. Bush; ozarkgirl; HairOfTheDog

After going back and watching it again (as I said, I was a bit distracted the first time around), I more or less stick by what I originally said, with a few revisions. One thing I looked for this time was whether or not the candidates answered the questions and showed some mental agility.

Hunter drops slightly because of this, as a lot of his confidence seemed to come from the fact that he largely stuck to his talking points, even if they only had a loose relationship with the question asked. He still looked strong, and I still think he benefits, but he's going to need to expand beyond defense, trade, and immigration if he wants to make the big leagues. He's hardly alone here, of course, as Brownback and Huckabee did much of the same. Huckabee sounded better on policy, while Brownback sounded better on principles. Neither did well enough to gain any traction, though.

Tommy Thompson gets a bump up. I think I mistook his quiet thoughtfulness for lack of confidence the first time around, as he seemed to genuinely want to answer every question directly, honestly, and completely. I'd almost say he's Lincolnesque in this way, except he lacks the rhetorical skills. The same could be said for Tancredo, but the way he handled the time constraints seemed weak, and I still think he was the biggest loser. He's a smart man, and his heart's in the right place, but he's just not ready for prime time.

I said Gilmore was forgettable, and I now realize that was largely because he didn't seem to get as much face time as the others. Still, he didn't really say much beyond touting his own record as governor and as a "consistent conservative", and so I don't think he really scored any points here. No one's going out of his way to vote for him unless they already knew him.

I still have McCain and Giuliani where they were. McCain said a lot that will please conservatives, but he stumbled a lot and liked to grin at his own statements; basically, he exhibited the things people hate about the President's speaking style, only it looked even worse on him. He did not seem very Presidential tonight. Giuliani did seem Presidential, and I think he handled that "gotcha" question on Sunnis and Shiites rather well considering the obscure subject matter, but he let slip a lot of things conservatives won't like. Between the two, Giuliani did better, but both will probably lose a little. This is bad for both, because even though they're frontrunners, their respective problems with conservatives mean they both have to be brilliant all the time to win. This is especially true for Rudy, whose vaunted leadership abilities are his number one selling point.

Overall, my list of winners and losers stays roughly the same. Romney was the biggest winner, followed by Hunter and, to a lesser extent, Paul. Rudy and McCain both lose a bit, though I think McCain's lack of composure will hurt him badly in the long run if he doesn't fix it. The rest lose by default, as I've said.

The biggest winners, though? Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich, because, aside from Romney, no one was particularly impressive. The only declared candidate who is going to gain a great deal of momentum out of this is Romney, and that's good news for anyone waiting to get in. Still, I wouldn't advise either to miss too many more of these, and I think both are missing opportunities to show their best qualities. I've never seen Fred in a debate, but I know he's both well-spoken and an intellectual who is knowledgeable about a wide range of subjects. I get the sense he could have wiped the floor with this field, Romney included. The only way Newt ever loses a debate is by putting the audience to sleep or by agreeing too much with the competition. If he can avoid those two things, he could still be a factor, if not necessarily the best candidate.

2,357 posted on 05/03/2007 9:34:07 PM PDT by The Pack Knight (Duty, Honor, Country. Thompson/Franks '08)

To: LibertarianInExile

That b.s. about how he’s the ‘one Republican who can win’ is one more part of why Romney will never get my vote. If ‘he’ll win,’ is your first defense, obviously, that’s his strength. Not his political conservatism.

If only it were somehow possible to squeeze that into the space allotted, I'd make that my new sig line in a nanosecond. ;)

2,358 posted on 05/03/2007 9:34:50 PM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("Proudly keeping one iron boot on the necks of libertarian faux 'conservatives' since 1958!")

>>how do you post a picture here- please let me know

This might help, along with lots of other directions:

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3aa5843c228c.htm#82

2,359 posted on 05/03/2007 9:37:15 PM PDT by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)

You're welcome. I was surprised at that, too.

2,360 posted on 05/03/2007 9:38:43 PM PDT by Gelato (... a liberal is a liberal is a liberal ...)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794