Posted on 05/04/2007 9:57:30 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Actually he look blatantly nervous. And his "pork-barrel" attack was an attack on the nation's technology future...attacking the LCS naval R&D project as "pork-barrel"...shows a commander as short-sighted as our enemies would want.
Agreed.
Important questions? Giuliani should be thankful he wasn't asked about his stance on gun control!
Yup. That would have been his on-air suicide.
Or the constitution for that matter (oops... he was, and he botched that one too). Is Morris working for the Giuliani campaign now?
I think so. Interesting how the Big three spinmeisters are willing to lose credibility to claim their guy "won" in that which wasn't a debate.
I think a Thompson-Romney or Romney-Thompson ticket is the answer...conservative and optomistic...articulate...both executive experience(Romney) and congressional experience (Thompson)...seem to be able to handle the media and possibly go OVER the media, something Reagan did and Bush has been unable to do.
I agree that this “debate” was a total sham. As an earlier poster said, to have Matthews in charge of this is like having O’Reilly in charge of Fox debates....something not even thought of, yet the Breck girl and others won’t go on Fox because of supposed bias. The Republicans should be pointing out the difference....that they are not afraid to handle tough questions unlike the Dems who won’t appear on the highest rated cable news channel....they are pathetic...and they want to lead our country?
If the questions were just all about that it wouldn’t be so bad. But when the questions are “how would you feel about Bill Clinton being back in the White House” and “What do you dislike about america”, it’s a waste of everybody’s time.
All you have to know about Morris is that, while he claims to be a republican, he was quite comfortable working in the Clinton administration and helping to get him re-elected.
My theory on Morris is he’s the guy the Clintons pay to go out and bash them, because it keeps any serious person who would do so off the air. Morris is very BAD at attacking the clintons.
Why Hannity goes along with the charade, I don’t know. Seriously, don’t you think we have 10-20 real conservatives who would be much better at revealing why the Clintons are bad for the country?
McCain was working that as well, with his “I can work with Democrats, I’ve already done it many times” admission.
Of course, we already know how McCain likes to work with the democrats.
I’d love to see someone get Fred and Duncan on a show for 30 minutes to debate the issue of NAFTA and globalism.
Then I’d love to see Fred and Tom T. debate what to do with the illegals already living in this country.
My opinion — regardless of which side you think is right, Fred would win both debates. But I think we’d all be smarter for the exercise.
I wish there were shows on TV looking to make us smarter, rather than entertain us, in the political realm. All the political shows are meant to reinforce what we already believe, not to persuade people or have deep discussions of the issues.
I think Fred Thompson wants to have real discussions, and whether he wins or loses, if he can bring that to our presidential primary, he will do worlds of good for the Republican cause.
Gilmore will have a problem because he is a 2nd-trimester pro-lifer. He had the honesty to say so in the debate, but a lot of pro-lifers are very uncomfortable with it, because it’s just drawing the line at another indefensible spot.
Actually, I don’t remember what week he uses, but I think it’s sometime after the heart beat starts (which is my absolute cut-off for accepting people as truly “pro-life”, meaning while I’m an “implantation” pro-lifer, I can stand to be with people who argue that a heart beat is their definition of life (on both ends of the spectrum).
Ditto that.
All the political shows are meant to reinforce what we already believe, not to persuade people or have deep discussions of the issues.
Really? I don't know. It seems to me that they they try to cloak their messages in feel-good familiar subjects, all the while feeding us things they want us to believe. No depth and low on facts. (Of course, my impressions may be based on totally different "political shows" than those you speak of.)
I think Fred Thompson wants to have real discussions, and whether he wins or loses, if he can bring that to our presidential primary, he will do worlds of good for the Republican cause.
I greatly hope that he wants to have real discussion. As to the rest, I totally agree.
Perhaps they could schedule those for the 4th of July. ;-)
Actually, the one who got the least amount of time of all 10 candidates PERIOD was Hunter, with only 5.5 minutes in total.
Michelle Malkin couldn't believe some of his goofy analysis. But as long as Fox and newspapers keep paying this guy, his nonsense will continue to go forth.
Baloney. If the Toesucker had a clue he would be dangerous, but he doesn't.
Every time I see that bozo on Fox I have to wonder how he ever got a job as a political consultant in national-level politics.
>I like Fred but his slow talking would not HAVE BEEN GOOD LAST NIGHT.<
I like Fred, too, but didn’t you mean “his slow, rambling and innocuous talking”?
I agree, if he's elected on a Republican ticket Rudy could do more damage to our rights and liberties than either Hillary or Hussein Obama could. Moderate Pub Senators and Congresscritters would feel obligated to support his liberal social/cultural agenda, and Rinos in both houses would jump at the chance to do the same.
I think he is an agent provocateur and still working for the Clintons...
I say Morris is an agent provocateur and still working for the Clintons...
So do I. I’ve said that here on numerous occasions.
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.