Posted on 01/06/2008 4:03:39 PM PST by CounterCounterCulture
Republican Presidential Candidate Debate #14 – Milford, New Hampshire 01/06/08 - Official Discussion Thread
Fox News Channel; Roundtable format
Candidates the gatekeepers are allowing to participating:
Whining is distinctly un-conservative.
Rush Limbaugh is the voice of conservatism. Do you think he will be whining on his show tomorrow morning about how FRed! got short-changed on Fox all night?
Wake up. FRed! shortchanges himself. He had a poor performance, as we all feared he would while he was sitting out the first 6 or 7 debates, and his followers are blaming Fox for his so-so showing. End of story.
This was the worst thing for me. I watched the debate, was feeling very good about Fred since he was really the only one not spewing soundbites, and then the out of focus group comes up...I could have broken my tv.
It’s sad that we no longer value subtance. I liked some of the things Romney had to say but there is no doubt that a lot of it was pre fabricated. Fred being Fred, tells it like it is, no pie in the sky promises, all subtance with a dash of wit, but no he doesn’t look good. yada yada yada
Dang you tv, ever since the 1960 race...
LOL, that’s great.
Can’t believe how people want a “personality” instead of someone who is thoughtful and serious. Fred obviously is the best choice among those in the debate—maybe not the best personality but definitely the best choice to be President and leader of this country.
I guess even George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abe Lincoln and others would have no chance to win an election nowadays. They would be too “serious” for the masses.
Duncan Hunter was my first choice, and I’m sorry he didn’t get more support to still be in the race.
Really, if Fred would have interjected more he would have been accused of playing dirty or some BS because he’s dead last in NH....
I think he and Rudy did what they needed to do tonight, and so did Mitt...
Fred’s time is coming. I doubt he’s going to sit so quietly once we hit states he is strong in.
The localization of melanoma isn't intuitive. Back and chest are most common sites in men, legs in women. Arms aren't rare in either. Faces are overall less common, but on a per square inch of skin basis facial skin has the highest risk. They can occur anywhere, even where the sun doesn't shine. There probably are multiple factors operating. The facial ones mostly are a type associated with very heavy ongoing lifelong sun exposure (e.g. a farmer or a sailor) and the types more common on sometimes exposed skin of trunk and extremities are more linked to intermittent overexposure and burns. Part of the effect of ultraviolet light on the skin is to suppress the immune system there and that effect isn't just a local one. Sunburning your shoulders actually produces subtle immune changes in the skin of your rear, which may partially explain the uncommon occurrence of skin cancer there.
As far as McCain's service to his country being linked to his melanomas I can only speculate, but I think there could be a link. I don't know whether he received severe sunburns as a POW. It wouldn't surprise me if his evil captors inflicted such on him and if they did it could have contributed to his melanomas. I don't know whether his family history offered any genetic risk beyond inheriting fair skin. It did offer environmental risk as he was born in the Canal Zone and grew up in a series of probably sunny naval bases. I don't know about McCain specifically, but my guess is that navy pilots as a group likely enjoy outdoor activities and get a lot of them recreationally as well as having significant opportunities for sun exposure while on duty out of the air. Also there is some data suggesting that the greater exposure to cosmic radiation pilots and airline crews receive from many hours airborne may increase skin cancer risks. Because of his shoulder injuries I'd guess McCain's outdoor activities after his repatriation were reduced and that most of his relevant sun exposure preceded that. I've not seen McCain interviewed regarding this and suspect that with his "tough guy" image he doesn't want sympathy for it and I sure wouldn't expect him to play a medical victim card. If he were elected I'd hope he'd let the medical press use him as an example to support our efforts to reduce skin cancer. Although if I had my choice to turn a Senator into a President and then into a national melanoma role model I'd rather use Senator Coburn for the part. He's also a melanoma survivor and I'd prefer his non-melanoma policies.
New England RINO voters want a rockstar...
IOWA pig farmers want a preacher....
Nothing depressing there....stay focused on SC with Fred. He needs to BEAT DOWN the GUBERnator sumthin’ fierce!
(Little bit of southern talk, tired of these Yankee RINOs!)
You keep on posting this crap like FReepers are idiots.
The only thing Rudy did concerning 911 was cost alot of brave people their lives by his utter incompetence in not correcting the emergency radio problem after the first Trade Center attack and by foolishly putting the emergency operations center in an obviously vulnerable place. Rudy's sanctuary city policy would have given sanctuary to the 911 terrorists who were here illegally.
Rudy appointed almost all Democrats as judges in NYC some of them flaming homosexual liberals. Rudy is a liberal and will, as he has in the past, appoint judges who think like him.
Rudy is not a fiscal conservative nor any kind of conservative. He's a liberal, plain and simple. We all know it, why don't you stop with the silly propaganda.
Frank Luntz's Professional "undecided" focus group members (September 5 vs January 6)
Wow Difference of opinion,but I thought republicans can at least speak in a civilized manner.
Are you kidding? Rudy was not only responsible for it, when the federal government made it illegal Rudy sued the federal government for his "right" to shield illegal aliens. When he lost, twice, in court he vowed he would continue the policy anyways. Some Mr. law and order.
Rudy's only serious claim is that he is a "leader" who can get things done. Your post, however, is mostly excuses for why he was unable to get important things done.
The one thing I feel certain of is that Rudy, thankfully, will not be the next president.
If that’s the way it went down on the issue of sanctuary city, then I agree that he doesn’t have a strong claim to being a law and order guy.
You probably see my post as trying to defend him, but it’s more of a post asking the question of whether it’s accurate to blame him solely for some of these things.
I appreciate the response.
No, I haven't posted in a long, long time but I read the posts on here all the time. I just had to chime in here. My husband is a firefighter who, thank god, did not die on 9/11. He does not blame Rudy for the problems that did exist on 9/11 and he as well as most of his FF buddies support Rudy. They will also vote for ANY republican over Hillary or Obama, regardless of what their union leaders want. (Not to keen on Huckabee though.)My husband says that what he saw in Rudy on 9/11 convinces him he is the right guy. It also struck us both how Rudy attended so many brave first responders funerals and spoke to us all and how our Senator Clinton was no where to be found in those long days and weeks after 9/11.
This group does not easily tolerate liberals which are the reason for most of the problems in this county. So be prepared for some tongue lashing when you come here and voice liberal opinions. We will try to show you the error of your ways.
Lying most of the time... it’s what Keating 5 pols do.
LLS
I guess not. Dole the man is magnificent... Dole the Presidential Candidate was a snoozer.
LLS
Fox's bias against Fred is an established fact, btw. But its all irrelevant in NH anyway since Fred knew he'd do poorly and basically ignored that state.
I am definitely leaning toward Fred. The first thing that impressed me about the man was the article posted a few days ago talking about the lack of “fire in his belly”. The idea that someone is not seeking to be president because that is their own goal, but that they are willing to serve for a time and then go back to their own life afterward resonates with me. We have too many career politicians in this country.
No. I am having a problem with stupid people who have no idea what conservatism is and are supporting candidates that are only marginally to this side of Ted Kennedy.
The candidates are all there is. One must choose from what is available. In my mind we have never had a completely conservative candidate, as conservativism IMHO is a developing compilation of the best of political thought and principle from before the founding fathers, to, including, and beyond today. Added to that would be the big tent problem of varying views of what a conservative candidate is depending on where an individual is standing on the scale of conservative thought.
There is more, but I suppose it would be less of an issue if everyone had the same scale, but that is not the case, and so everyone judges a candidate with a different scale. Meaning that some might regard the liberal Mitt, or the Liberal McCain or the liberal Rudy, to be worthy of their vote based on which conservative principle they espouse is higher on the personal scale of the voter, as all of the candidates have some conservative principles in their platforms.
Is there a winning alternative besides choosing from the available candidates?
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.