GOP Debate
Mitt Romney, Giuliani and McCain came off the best. Rudy Giuliani was more boring than I expected. But he articulated himself well. McCain was the most forceful. he did show leadership qualities and I have always liked his position on pork. The problem is, we know him too well by now and he has made too many missteps in the past. I also think Ron Paul came off well if you agree with him, and I do in some areas. I am probably more of a libertarian than a conservative, but I don’t entirely agree with the libertarian party on everything. I do think Ron Paul did a good job of stating his positions and standing out. The problem for him is, his ideas are so radical, I doubt he will get gain much traction.
All the others were basically more of the same. A bunch of old white guys with the same positions. Three of them don’t believe in evolution (Tancredo, Brownback, Huckabee). All of them said they would be fine with Roe Vs Wade being overturned, if it were. Giuliani was the only one who said he would be fine with it standing as is. But he said he was against anyone getting an abortion. All of them are for lowering taxes or keeping the Bush tax cuts intact.
Ultimately, I think the three I mentioned are the only ones who will be in serious play. But Fred Thompson, if he gets in, could be the dark horse to upset the applecart.
I do think Tommy Thompson’s idea for Iraq was a good one: give the citizens 1/3 of the oil profits. That would make them love the government and not want to rock the boat. But if you think WE have an illegal alien problem…watch what would happen there.
All in all, Romney probably came off the most presidential. Giuliani was fine, but not as dynamic as I was hoping. McCain was feisty and showed he still had what it takes. But I think the honeymoon is over for him and he will have a hard time winning the nomination. Ron Paul might be a spoiler in the Ross Perot mold, but that remains to be seen (A Drudge poll shows him coming in a close third to Giuliani.)
For now, those four are probably going to lead the race for the nomination. If Thompson enters, all bets are off.
By the way, I think it’s telling that the Democrats refused to debate on a Fox affiliate because they claimed Brit Hume was biased. But th Republicans went on fanatically anti-Republican MSNBC (home of Keith Olberman) and was questioned by Chris Matthews an ardent Democrat and former Carter staffer. Not a pep of complaint. What a bunch of crybabies the Democrats are. Or is it that the nutnet roots people have them running scared. If the Dems are afraid of some crazy bloggers, what kind of courage would they show against crazy terrorists?
What the Donks would show? Their a**es five times a day, all lubricated with Vaseline™ and ready to go.
Posted by Macker on 05/04 at 03:19 AMDoh!!!!
Macker…..that’s brutal….but prob true!
There is a warehouse, somewhere in Washington DC, full of moldy green spines!Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 05/04 at 04:23 AM2 Cents:
Issues aside, I thought Mitt Romney had the most presidential air to him. He just seems to fit the role. I wish I could nail it down more than that.
My admiration for the constitutionality of Ron Paul has once again been bolstered. It was a pleasure to hear him talk about need for declarations of war last night, and the importance he places on freedom of expression. But he’s not a dynamic speaker and lacks that same “presidential quality” that Mitt has. But the dude is smart.
Finally, three of the six candidates didn’t believe in evolution. WTF?! Thats half the candadacy right now. Holy crap that is scary. Talk about pandering to extreme constituents. What ever happened to the moderate Republicans that were so popular three moths ago? This is crazy. The last thing I want is someone like that in control of our army. Religous zealots are absolutist and they do not recognize the legitimacy of any secular authority, such as…the majority of the nation. And yes, if you do not believe in evolution, I consider you a zealot.
Finally, I think you guys are silly in your democrat criticisms. you guys nit pick at any little thing you an find wrong and in the process loose the forest through the trees.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 05/04 at 05:16 AMI’m not American, but as a libertarian I would support Ron Paul. It’s a good idea that he joined the Republican party, because he wouldn’t have any chance as a Libertarian candidate. I hope some of his ideas(like his stand on drug control)get more popularity, because changes in American politics always have an effect on the whole world.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 05/04 at 07:00 AM“And yes, if you do not believe in evolution, I consider you a zealot.”
And I suppose by that statement you are not a zealot? Typical irrational liberal thought.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 05/04 at 07:46 AM“Typical irrational liberal thoughts.”
Very classy, that adds a lot to the debate. Why don’t you explain to me why I should feel okay with a candidate who feels that way towards evolution instead of painting me broad brush strokes—Typical Christian anti-intellectualism.I don’t think that my view is irrational. There are piles and piles of evidence all around us that evolution does occur.
The first fossil remains are of very simple living things. As the strata get more recent, the variety and complexity of life increase. This is nothing new.
But, if you want to ignore all that proof because the bible says so, because Emperor Constantine felt that god created everything in his image in 325 A.D.. Well that speaks volumes to me. It means you have been too indoctrinated to be able to view the world around you with rational, objective thought. That refusal to look reality in the eye is enough for me to classify the person as a zealot.
Does that help explain my thinking? Is that logical enough for you? Or do you not like rational thought? Prefer to stick to your dogmas. I will give you some time to ask someone else to make up an answer for you.
If my thinking makes me a zealot, so be it. I accept that title. I will never vote for a president who lets his faith rule his brains. There is nothing scarier to me than “righteous” politics. Further more, it is okay for me to be a zealot, I am not running for president. I have very little influence on others.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 05/04 at 08:21 AM“.......his ideas are so radical…...”
No more so than those of our Founding Fathers.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 05/04 at 08:38 AMobviously you dont know your history very well. Thomas Paine, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Ethan Allen, James Madison, and Ben Franklin were all Diests.
Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814
the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. [George Washington, 1789, responding to clergy complaints that the Constitution lacked mention of Jesus Christ
Lighthouses are more helpful than churches.
-Benjamin FranklinWhat influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.”—- James Madison, “A Memorial and Remonstrance”, 1785
“As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?”—- John Adams, letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816
“The appearance of religion only on Sunday proves that it is only an appearance.” [John Adams]
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 05/04 at 09:21 AMTestify
If you are responding to my comment below, please enlighten me as to exactly what you are referencing.
”.......his ideas are so radical…...”No more so than those of our Founding Fathers.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 05/04 at 09:31 AMFred Thompson looks pretty good in a lot of ways, but I worry he lacks the “fire in the belly” to make it as President.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 05/04 at 10:10 AMHe’s responding to Bob, Brock.
As for “his ideas are so radical”, I meant that this is how they would be perceived by the public at large. I do think a lot of Paul’s views are right on. I would be surprised if he even came close to being nominated, but what the heck.
Testify,
There are 8 candidates, not six. There are a lot worse things for leaders to believe than creationism. A lot of past presidents believed in it and did a fine job. You’d be surprised who believes in it.
Posted by James Hudnall on 05/04 at 10:35 AM“He’s responding to Bob, Brock.”
Sorry.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 05/04 at 10:51 AM
Next entry: Psuedo-science vs Real Science
Previous entry: Iron Man's Suits
