GOP Debate #4 thread: Republican Presidential Candidate Debate #4 - Des Moines, Iowa 08/05/07 - Official Discussion Thread
GOP Debate #3 thread: Republican Presidential Candidate Debate #3 - Manchester, NH 06/05/07 - Official Discussion Thread
GOP Debate #2 thread: Republican Presidential Candidate Debate #2 - Columbia, SC 05/15/07 - Official Discussion Thread
GOP Debate #1 thread: Republican Presidential Candidate Debate #1~ Reagan Library 05/03/07 - Official Discussion Thread
Who was the person laughing at Paul?
It looks like Guliani tried to have the illegals that “don’t commit crimes” live free in his city. You want illegal labor, you’ll get illegal crime.
Ok... late to the discussion. But why not more Duncan Hunter? He was purposefully presented as a side-liner. He’s placed on the far side of the stage and only asked a few questions... mostly as a courtesy to not be left out of the conversation altogether. I felt disappointed about the debates because it was pretty biased as who got to be addressed.
Duncan Hunter had a good debate as long as people have never seen him debate. Some of his lines are getting a little old for those who have heard them four or five times. On the last question, he was the only candidate whose answer gave me any confidence that he could handle the situation.
Tom Tancredo wins more of my respect with every debate, but he's not the right man to be president right now.
John McCain helped himself by not making any major mistakes and not looking as bad as he often does. He still isn't going to buoy his campaign with this performance. He should quit the race before he embarrasses himself further.
Mitt Romney did okay, but he had a rough debate.
Rudy Giuliani did okay in a few places criticizing the Democrats. He's trying to say the right things now, but he has too much history as a liberal extremist. His fumbling the last question made everything else look weaker.
Sam Brownback is another candidate who needs to quit. He serves no purpose in this race, and he did nothing to change that perception.
Ron Paul isn't a bad guy, but too many of his beliefs are just wrong. He may do well in New Hampshire. By taking votes from other candidates, he's skewing the race, but I'm not sure who he's hurting or helping.
Bill
Russia would have delivered nukes by conventional and trackable means: missiles with radar signatures, planes with stars on the side, etc. Had Russia attacked, it would have been an obvious causus bellum with a clear enemy. It was unmistakable who to target by all accounts.
By contrast, by its actions, Iran has proven it will stoop to nuclear terrorism at the first opportunity, whence the terrorists could deny the origin of the weapon. How do you declare nuclear war against a country when you can't prove the origin of the attack? Heck, the terrorists could claim they got the weapon from Pakistan or off the Russian black market. What would we do about that?
So when Hunter, even after several minutes to think about it, started talking in a disjointed fashion about what weapons he would use, he fed the usual fear-mongers that he'd be a trigger-happy war monger.
Even better would have been if he had used the metaphor he was developing at the end of his piece earlier. He noted that Iran had released the hostages out of fear of Reagan, so his answer should have mentioned in the premise that the President SHOULD talk about the likelihood of actually making a first strike, a scary prospect for a prospective "end-of-the-world" jihadist. Let the enemy sweat over whether he really means, this time, or maybe next?
Hunter didn't take the ten seconds to explain clearly those underlying premises BEFORE talking about what military action he would take. To be President, he must teach the people WHY he plans to do what he does, else he won't have the support to carry through. If he is to learn to be an effective communicator, quickly imparting the real gravity of the situation is a skill he must acquire.
From what I listened too, they all said some things I agree with, even Paul uttered a few comments I could agree with. Fred didn't say much, of course he wasn't there, so since we are OVER A YEAR AWAY FROM THE ELECTION, I reserve the right to listen to these guys for a while before I jump on any bandwagon.
BTW, the Giants are up 5-1 in the ninth.
Plus the NFL stats tomorrow!
Damn! Rockies just scored 2!
Ron Paul up now. Anybody going to watch Jay Leno?
This is the first time I had the chance to see Ron Paul.
Two questions. Why did they let a Democrat into the debate?
Second, why are so many people in the audience cheering for this Democrat at a Republican debate?
Fred-On, Apply directly to the White House!
Fred-On, Apply directly to the White House!
Fred-On, Apply directly to the White House!
Ads like that are about as interesting as these debates.
We need to move presidential debates to more of House of Commons format.