Anyone catch this tonight? I'm watching it now (recorded earlier). The first thing that came to mind was, how ironic that democrats retreated and surrendered on debating on Fox, and here the Republicans are on MSNBC with (of all people), Chris Matthews. That's a powerful observation. Some general notes: Ron Paul - Good Lord, how did this nutjob get elected in "MY" state as a Republican? First time I've seen him in action and my impression was that he would have been a good extra on the Beverly Hillbillies. Comes across as a total goofball/nutjob. Rudy - Did pretty well. Came across as likeable, some good answers, got stumped on abortion. Tancredo - I've seen him before. Still not impressed. Huckaby - Interesting, worth a more indepth look. Tommy - Not impressed. Seems stuffy, very closed off, very unapproachable. Had some decent ideas on Iraq though. Romney - Sharp, on the money with answers, likeable, sense of humor, serious on issues, exudes confidence. Still my "current" front runner. McCain - Bless his heart! He's trying to appear to be firm, but he has too much history for me. Huckaby - Came off as someone that stands by his morals. May appear to be too religious for some. Gilmore - Didn't get much time. Seems reasonable, informed. Hunter - Didn't get much time, but was impressed with the time he did get. Worth an extra look. Definitely some tough questions tossed out. Gotta tip my hat to them for doing what the democrats wouldn't do...going onto a network that is historically supportive of democrats with a historically hostile host (though he was cordial). Unlike democrats, who retreated and surrendered on their first debate, just like they do in their day to day jobs. Overall impressions: Romney, Guiliani and Hunter impressed me the most, in that order. Hunter didn't get much time, would have liked to have seen more of his positions.
Huckabee. Huckabee. No idea who a Huckaby is, or why you listed him twice. I shalt rate the three I liked. John McCain - I supported him back in 2000, and I have watched what he says, and I have seen what he has done for Arizona. I used to live in Arizona, next door to Arizona too. I have also lived in Arkansas and Utah. Hackabee - no. No. No. No. McCain? Yes. I think he did fairly well and got his points across. 9/10. However he didn't explicitly support a flat tax plan. -1. He does support Stem Cell Research +1 bonus point. He does believe in evolution. +1 bonus point. 11/10 final. Giuliani Fairly well in my opinion, and I am glad abortion is a hard issue for him - it should be for ANYONE. Overall 8/10. -1 for not mentioning much on a flat tax and -1 on a flip flop. -1 for being weird and getting a bad vibe. Ron Paul - 9/10. I love crazy people. Elimination of the income tax and the illegal amendment 14 - awesome. World views. Not so awesome. -1 for bad foreign policy. + 1 for economic policy. +1 for being totally f**king insane. 10/10 final. Bonus: Mitt Romney, the golden boy right now. Yay, he save New Jersey. Whatever. He disagrees with Evolution. -1. He disregards science. -1. He doesn't say much about the things I wanted to hear -1. He says his faith doesn't affect his judgment -1. (Huckabee did one thing right) and he made a comment I did not like toward Nancy Reagan -9. -(yes, negative)3/10. I would decline to vote in the election if he was their running man.
Of the top 3, Romney is my front runner at the moment. Rudy is just too far left leaning for my tastes on social issues. McCain just can't figure out what side of the fence he wants to be on. I'm still hoping for an announcement from Fred Thompson that he'll enter the race.
Where's Fred! ? I'm not a Romney person, but he looked the best overall. Ron Paul reminded me of Perot's vice presidential pick in 92 or 96 (I forget). Guiliani flubbed a little bit.
Well I guess the whole "top three" propaganda was missed with those that voted Ron Paul the winner last night. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18296908/
From the Boston Globe: Which 2008 Republican presidential candidate had the strongest performance in Thursday night's debate? Ron Paul Click to view image 47.3% Mitt Romney Click to view image 32.9% John McCain Click to view image 8.5% Rudy Giuliani Click to view image 4.9% Tommy Thompson Click to view image 2.1% Tom Tancredo Click to view image 1.5% Sam Brownback Click to view image 0.9% Jim Gilmore Click to view image 0.9% Mike Huckabee Click to view image 0.6% Duncan Hunter Click to view image 0.3% Reply With Quote http://www.boston.com/news/politics/
from Capital News: Who won Thursday's Republican Presidential debate? Sam Brownback 2% Jim Gilmore 2% Rudolph Giuliani 8% Mike Huckabee 3% Duncan Hunter 2% John McCain 6% Mitt Romney 11% Ron Paul 59% Tom Tancredo 4% Tommy Thompson 3% Total Votes: 1598 http://www.capitalnews.org/
I really like Ron Paul, but his short-sighted stance on foreign policy makes him a completely unacceptable candidate for me. If John McCain is nominated, I will campaign for Hillary. My vote currently goes to... Rudy, our first Italian president. He's make Al Qaeda an offer they can't refuse.
Perhaps. But if Fred! wins he'll scare them to death with the big-boobed women he always hangs around with. Boobies seem to frigthen islamists
Hello, Romney was pretty sharp, but that was expected. I just wish Duncan Hunter would of done better. Good luck
I must admit I am actually shocked again by one of your posts Will. You do own stupidest post I've ever seen on this forum (for your nuke comment) but you would be one of the last people that I would have down as liking Ron Paul. He is probably the only true hope for America. An honest politician. That itself is an absolute miracle and that is why he has not got a hope in hell of getting the call. My call is Americas fake mayor Giuliani v the dog Clinton. It will make for great BS debate like the Bush v Kerry ones but of course Hillary is already the next President, as it was decided long before now. But we can all watch the charade with interest though. Better than watching "Friends" or worrying about Britney Spears I s'pose.
I heard Paul supporters were flooding the poll votes on msnbc last night. Even one of the anchors were commenting about it. Honesty has nothing to do with him not getting the call, it's his loony conspiracy beliefs. That's the only reason people like AGS even care about him.
Like I said GT he is Americas last hope. But you'll have that munter Hillary in charge next and the corruption and disaster will continue. Honest politicians like Paul are a rare breed. Just like I have said, 2 family's have controlled the USA since 1981 (including pappy Bush pulling the strings during the Reagan tenure), not exactly an ideal situation is it mate? Hillary will get the two terms and that will mean that you (the USA) have been run by just two family's for 35 YEARS. (1981 - 2016) It's a disaster for the world and there is absolutely no doubt about it.
Like I said, we know why you feel that way You have to realize that most people here have a higher intelligence level than those who hang around on sites with "prison" in the url Edit: AGS, check out this url: http://www.google.com/search?source...italpoint.com+AGS+disaster&btnG=Google+Search
Ron Paul is clearly worrying them, i.e., he is doing something right. I wonder how they plan to keep him out of the rest of the debates. I hope he runs as an independent if he can't get the republican nomination. He could pull a Ross Perot, but better and a least wake some of the sheeple.