Republican Debate

wonkadog · 11-29-2007, 10:24 AM

Anyone else watch the debate last night? I was all ready to ditch Tancredo and jump aboard the Huckabee bandwagon but didn't come away particularly impressed with Mike. On the other hand I really liked what Tancredo had to say so I think I'm still sticking with him. In other news, Romney continued to look like a flip-flopping snake.

cmoneyr · 11-29-2007, 10:38 AM

Huckabee really annoyed me, all his answers seemed so forced and rehearsed, really didn't get any sort of emotion from him. Romney looked awful, the gays in the military question just made me laugh. When Anderson Cooper asked him if he still feels like he felt in '94 as hoping to see a time when gays could be openly gay in the military, he looked so flustered and nervous. I don't see myself voting for any of these people, I am pretty liberal and all of them rub me the wrong way. That being said, Ron Paul honestly looked like my favorite of all of them. If he was running as an Independent and depending on who the Dem's put up I would seriously think about voting for him. McCain seemed as unimpressive as ever, and if Guiliani wins the presidency I'm moving to Canada, he is such a loser.

I was curious, when Giuliani said Romney employed illegal aliens at his governors estate, does anyone know the truth behind that? I'm curious as to which, if not both, of them were lying there.

wonkadog · 11-29-2007, 10:55 AM

So I take it that you didn't really enjoy Huckabee's comment about sending Hillary to Mars then? Ron Paul is one of my "do not vote for" people because of his stance on abortion. He's so anti-federal government interference that he wouldn't sign a federal law banning abortions if he could.

alaskaguy · 11-29-2007, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by wonkadog

So I take it that you didn't really enjoy Huckabee's comment about sending Hillary to Mars then? Ron Paul is one of my "do not vote for" people because of his stance on abortion. He's so anti-federal government interference that he wouldn't sign a federal law banning abortions if he could.

Yeah, its terrible having a candidate (Ron Paul) that actually considers the U.S. constitution to be the law of the land (sarcasm intended).

bawbie · 11-29-2007, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by cmoneyr

I was curious, when Giuliani said Romney employed illegal aliens at his governors estate, does anyone know the truth behind that? I'm curious as to which, if not both, of them were lying there.

Yes, he hired a company to work on (or at) his house that later turned out to have hired illegals (this is according to CNN's "fact check afterwards". I've read it other places too). I don't think Romney ever denied it. I do think Giuliani looked really bad because he had nothing when Romney turned it back on him and asked if we should demand papers for everyone working on our house. That was the only good line Romney had all night in my book.

In general I thought Huck and McCain did the best, but as an ardent Democrat I'm not the best person to judge.

cmoneyr · 11-29-2007, 11:07 AM

I didn't listen to the question about sending Hillary to Mars so I don't know. I agree with Ron Paul's position on not signing a Federal ban on abortion, personally. I agree it should be in the State's hands to decide whether or not it should be illegal.

brianhos · 11-29-2007, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by wonkadog

So I take it that you didn't really enjoy Huckabee's comment about sending Hillary to Mars then? Ron Paul is one of my "do not vote for" people because of his stance on abortion. He's so anti-federal government interference that he wouldn't sign a federal law banning abortions if he could.

You have touched on the BEST reason to vote for Ron Paul. This is NOT a federal problem, it is a state issue. If it is not national defenese or national infrastructure, the federeal government has no right to be sticking their nose in it.

cmoneyr · 11-29-2007, 11:13 AM

I don't remember who said it, but when talking about gays in the military I thought it was interesting someone said openly gay people shouldn't be allowed because they're beliefs clash with the Judeo-Christian beliefs that America holds. Does that mean that Muslims, Buddhists etc. shouldn't be allowed in the military because it's offensive to peoples beliefs? Or people that are not pro-life shouldn't be allowed in the military? Seemed like a horrible answer.

Yes, he hired a company to work on (or at) his house that later turned out to have hired illegals (this is according to CNN's "fact check afterwards". I've read it other places too). I don't think Romney ever denied it. I do think Giuliani looked really bad because he had nothing when Romney turned it back on him and asked if we should demand papers for everyone working on our house. That was the only good line Romney had all night in my book.

I had a feeling it was Giuliani who was distorting the facts in that case.

jdoggivjc · 11-29-2007, 11:15 AM

See, that's the thing I don't like about Ron Paul - his view of the Constitution means that he as President and we as Americans aren't allowed to do anything. Every time I hear Ron Paul speak, with the exception of withdrawing the troops from everywhere around the world (the Middle East is one thing, bases in Germany is another), it's always about what he won't do and what the Constitution won't allow him to do. If Ron Paul somehow ends up in the Oval Office I imagine his presidency to be much like Zaphod's in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" series, where his role is to draw attention away from the real decision makers so they can do their job (and if the "real" decision makers consist of Congress and the UN, we're in real trouble indeed).

Personally, I was impressed with Huckabee. His answer of "Jesus was smart enough not to get involved with politics" was the one-liner of the night and handled every other question well IMO.

Incyte · 11-29-2007, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by alaskaguy

Yeah, its terrible having a candidate (Ron Paul) that actually considers the U.S. constitution to be the law of the land (sarcasm intended).

I wonder if a ban on abortion would qualify as an enumerated power of Congress under the commerce clause. About anything falls under the commerce clause anymore. That might be a stretch though. I guess one could argue that an increase in the number of children is vital to our future economic interest.

This sounds like a good final exam question for law school.

As a matter of policy it should be a state issue. The "constitutional" question is more debatable.

cmoneyr · 11-29-2007, 11:22 AM

Originally Posted by jdoggivjc

See, that's the thing I don't like about Ron Paul - his view of the Constitution means that he as President and we as Americans aren't allowed to do anything. Every time I hear Ron Paul speak, with the exception of withdrawing the troops from everywhere around the world (the Middle East is one thing, bases in Germany is another), it's always about what he won't do and what the Constitution won't allow him to do. If Ron Paul somehow ends up in the Oval Office I imagine his presidency to be much like Zaphod's in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" series, where his role is to draw attention away from the real decision makers so they can do their job (and if the "real" decision makers consist of Congress and the UN, we're in real trouble indeed).

Personally, I was impressed with Huckabee. His answer of "Jesus was smart enough not to get involved with politics" was the one-liner of the night and handled every other question well IMO.

I don't think he says that he or we have no power to do anything. I think he understands and thinks there are certain things the Federal government should not control, and there are things that should always be at a State's decision. That doesn't seem like a bad thing to me. I think the real problem is the current administration sees no bounds to their power as far as the constitution is concerned, and that is alarming.

iceclone · 11-29-2007, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by jdoggivjc

... and if the "real" decision makers consist of Congress and the UN, we're in real trouble indeed.

The alternative to federal power is not Congress or the UN, it is the States. Power to the People!

mwitt · 11-29-2007, 12:07 PM

While Romney did have a good comeback to Rudy accusing him of having a "sanctuary mansion" (gee, do you think Romney had planned that response?), he offered no rebuttal to the fact that his state did in fact have some sanctuary cities (I don't believe it was six, like Rudy claimed).

And the people who claim NYC was a sanctuary city under Rudy's watch are wrong. Their policy included the exceptions of children in school, those of whom were attacked and/or needed to report a crime, and those who needed emergency medical attention. That's okay in my book.

I'll write in Roger Sprague before I vote for Ron Paul. I think he's out of his mind. He's kind of like that weird uncle that shows up at family functions and you can't get to shut up with his crazy ideas.

To my knowledge, him and Kuccinich are the only ones who are saying they would bring the troops home instantly. That should tell you something.

I thought Rudy had an okay night. Huckabee is an excellent debater, but I feel like he needs sto get deeper into some issues. I'm getting sick of hearing about him cutting taxes 90+ times when it sounds like there was a net tax increase during his tenure. While I know John McCain doesn't have a chance, I really respect him. It's unfortunate that they don't give equal time to candidates like Tancredo and Hunter in settings like this.

Right now, my prediction is for Giuliani to win the nomination and have Huckabee as a running mate.

On the Democratic side, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd have been about the only ones that don't make me want to throw up in my mouth.

wonkadog · 11-29-2007, 12:17 PM

Giuliani would need Huckabee as his running mate since his stance on abortion turns off many conservative voters (such as myself). On second thought, I don't know how much good it would do to have a pro-life V.P. anyway...would his opinion on the issue really mean anything?

mwitt · 11-29-2007, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by wonkadog

Giuliani would need Huckabee as his running mate since his stance on abortion turns off many conservative voters (such as myself). On second thought, I don't know how much good it would do to have a pro-life V.P. anyway...would his opinion on the issue really mean anything?

Giuliani's stance on abortions doesn't bother me a ton, but I'm not a hardcore conservative. It seems to be that he doesn't personally like them, but he's willing to accept that there are circumstances in which a woman should be able to choose. The only way I'm accepting of abortions is in times of rape or incest and very early in the pregnancy.

Edit: I think you're right, though. The voters who are very conservative would have a hard time looking past that.