Posted on 10/09/2007 11:58:39 AM PDT by CounterCounterCulture
Republican Presidential Candidate Debate #8 – Dearborn, Michigan 10/09/07 - Official Discussion Thread
CNBC/MSNBC/The Wall Street Journal are jointly sponsoring the first Republican Presidential debate of the 2008 campaign focusing on economic issues. It will be held on October 9 in Dearborn, Michigan at the University of Michigan-Dearborn at the Ford Community and Performing Arts Center. Broadcast is live on CNBC at 4 PM ET (1 PM PT) and re-broadcast on MSNBC at 9 PM ET (6 PM PT). CNBC's Maria Bartiromo and MSNBC's Chris Matthews will host the debate.
Candidates participating:
And not above conflicts of interest in her job...
Slow and steady is still polling ahead of Mitt though...
>> Baloney.
Salami.
>> Hunter is the only real social conservative in the race. Lotsa people like to call themselves conservative. Look at Rudy. But that doesn’t make them conservative.
A familiar tactic of Hunter supporters - futile attempts to declare Hunter the only conservative in the race. There are several conservatives in this race ... and Thompson is clearly the most electable of the group. My determination of Thompson’s conservatism is based on his policy stances, not his “calling himself a conservative”.
>> Yes, of course. But what is it that compels these people who like to call themselves “conservative” to tear down social conservatives on a social conservative forum? It’s bad manners in the least.
Demonstrating that Hunter isn’t going to win is hardly “tearing him down”. Its a factual analysis of the race ... he’s not going to win.
>> First, you put quotes around the word “conservative” as if it doesn’t “really” mean conservative, because perhaps your chosen candidate is “conservative” and you steal away the meaning of “conservative”.
I did that because there are clearly other conservative candidates in this race, and conservatives supporting them. Thus, Hunter “conservatives” are not the only conservatives out there.
>> Then you point out that Hunter’s support is negligible.
Statistically speaking, it is.
>> And yet, if you line up Hunter’s positions with those of mainstream America, you see a real match.
Hunter does not have a monopoly on conservatism in the Republican primary. I see matches with several candidates ... and one is clearly drawing the support of far more of these matching Americans than the others.
>> That means you’re engaging in straw argumentation to make whatever point it was that you wanted to make.
Huh? What straw arguments did I make? That Hunter’s support is negligible? That Hunter does not have a monopoly on conservatism or conservative supporters? My arguments were quite clear, and you apparently understood them ... I fail to see the “straw argument”.
>> We’ve still got a year, and a good example was how far behind Kerry was behind Dean in the democrat race at this point in the cycle last time.
Kerry - who, if I recall, was in 2nd - took over after Dean’s implosion. Hunter is currently 9th or 10th ... a LOT of people would have to self-destruct to get Hunter to the front. Lets hope that doesn’t happen ... it certainly wouldn’t be good for conservatism to have Republican candidates imploding (ala Howard Dean).
The fact that you’re hoping that Thompson implodes makes me question whether you’ll in fact put the interests of conservatism generally above the interests of your candidate specifically. Perhaps what is best for the Duncan Hunter campaign is not necessarily what is best for the conservative movement.
>> This is a copout. Plain and simple.
Baloney. It is a fact that a divided conservative base is beneficial to non-conservative candidates.
>> Oh, so it’s just a fun game for you. OK, I’ll just try to ignore you then.
I come here for entertaining debate and commentary - as do most posters here. I fail to see where this is offensive. Ignore me if it suits you.
>> That’s just it. People CLAIM to agree with him on the issues, but they don’t support him.
If you agree with multiple candidates on the issues - then clearly the issues cannot be the only deciding factor in your vote. It is possible to agree with a candidate, and support someone else.
>> Because they do not own up to the fact that they disagree with us.
As I said - like many people, I come here for entertaining debate ... disagreement is required for debate. I’d tell you if I disagreed.
>> I am starting to suspect the same is true of Fred Followers. Just look at the Dobson threads lately, and you’ll see the antichristian bigotry poking out its head.
A Thompson supporter said something you consider anti-Christian, so you’ve decided all Thompson supporters are anti-Christian liberals?
I am a Christian ... thus not an anti-Christian bigot. Now who’s setting up a strawman argument? You’re arguing with a position I didn’t take. In my experience, most Thompson supporters on this site are conservatives who support Thompson ... where’s the harm in that?
>> There’s no way EVER that social conservatives are going to line up behind Giuliani as a “conservative standard-bearer”. That shows that you don’t understand the standard that is supposedly being held up.
Your condescending tone notwithstanding - I understand plenty. Thompson is the best chance we have at not nominating Rudy - that’s pretty much the point of this thing. I don’t want Rudy nominated any more than you do. However, though I disagree with him, I’ll not tear-down Giuliani or any other Republican ... as each of them is a better choice than the Democrat alternative.
H
come back when you reach adulthood.
bye...
Ignore me if it suits you.
***OK
Hmmm, I’m sure you’re going to convince him to take another look at Hunter with a post like that!
Sad to think that we(you) would even consider picking a President based on this criteria.
And so early in the pre primary stages of the election.
>> If I’ve mistaken you with another who uses the standard “DunkinDonut’ remark, I apologize.
No worries.
>> One thing that is for certain. The Thompson supporters have caused me to take a long hard look at all of the other people in the race. It seems that none of the Fred supporters I have seen can admit a single flaw in the man.
You want to vote against Thompson because his supporters won’t admit he has flaws? That’s bizarre.
He certainly has flaws ... as does Hunter, and each of the other Republican candidates. But, why would we point out the flaws in our own candidates? The Democrats will spend millions of dollars to accentuate the flaws in the Republican nominee ... I see no need to help them do so.
I’ve seen a similar failure to admit flaws from Hunter supporters (for instance, lack of electability) - but that doesn’t seem to offend you. Why are you particularly offended that Thompson supporters support Thompson without pointing out his flaws - but not at Hunter supporters for supporting Hunter without acknowledging his flaws?
Seems you’ve got something of a double-standard there.
H
>> Sad to think that we(you) would even consider picking a President based on this criteria. And so early in the pre primary stages of the election.
I choose my candidates based on conservative principles and electability. All other things being equal ... electable is better than not electable. I’ve seen little policy distinction between Hunter and Thompson ... and a HUGE difference in electability.
Why is that a problem?
H
I'm on board with you guys... haven't seen debate yet, do not have cable so will catch online at some point.
No. I never said that. I may well vote for him in the general elections,should he get that far.
But I would have been much more receptive if the Thompson supporters had not resorted to similar tactics used previously by the Rudy supporters.
And, if I am reading you right, you're saying "only Fred can beat Rudy".
That's eerily similar to the "only Rudy can beat Hillary" mantra.
I’ve seen a similar failure to admit flaws from Hunter supporters (for instance, lack of electability)
We're all aware that he has a slim chance, but it bugs me that this early people who profess their conservatism toss it aside so early for political expediency.
No fire in the belly, it seems to me.
Duncan Hunter was first elected to Congress, defeating an 18-year Democrat incumbent in what was then a safe district for Democrats. History has shown Duncan Hunter to have electability.
Today the scoreboard shows every candidate running for President tied with zero votes received. The score will remain that until the first vote is cast, which isn't for a few months.
What you need to do is scare people away from voting for Duncan Hunter is create a perception that Hunter is (quote) "unelectable" (unquote). You need to scare people with what you hope is a self-fulfilling prophecy. And it's not just you. All the candidate teams have to put out that their candidate is the "only one" capable of defeating Hillary. All this gamesmanship pits people voting against their conscience with the most convincing scare tactics.
Hillary Clinton has such high negatives and will polarize people towards the Republican candidate whomever it is, much like what happened in 2000 with Gore and 2004 with Kerry. We could have done far better than Bush in 2000, but scare tactics and misperceptions will virtually guarantee mediocrity. Mediocrity is unacceptable with our Constitutional rights and civil liberties on the line.
If as many people were willing to do the hard work to elect Hunter, instead of settling for the best front runner without even an effort, I could understand.
I guess that's what bugs me most. A lack of people willing to settle. not so many willing to bust their collective butts to elect, IMO, the better candidate.
When you say, "I like Hunter but..." what you're saying is it's way too much time and effort than I'm willing to devote.
( and when I say "you" I am speaking collectively)
Fred Thompson IMO did just fine out of the box, and will improve in time.
Worst: Romney (all show), McCain boring and out of synch with ordinary ppl, Guiliani open borders status quo, and ‘Mussolini like’ after he gets power.
Fred seems like he’ll be ‘kryponite’ for the ‘driveby’ media, and Hillary....:^)
I can go for that myself.
No more second best. No more lesser of two evils. No matter what. :)
You can't be that naive.
Hardly describes me. I’m a Christian myself.
then you don’t know the Fair Tax...prebate is NOT entitlement.
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.