ABC v. FOX Abc panel and I agree ..nobody came close to destroying Romney. There were several attempts But NOTHING like the MITTS OFF full frontal assault as promised. Maybe Paul IS right..These clowns are CHICKEN HEART. Full of Bluff outside the arena ..FLUFF inside the ring. EVEN I ..a Romney supporter EXPECTED MORE. If this is your best shot..No wonder over 50 % say Romney will be the nominee and defeat Obama next Fall. What is the debate count ? 15 ? And you cant make the case why you should be it over Romney ? What chance would you have OVER a tougher President ? I switched to Fox after to see what their spin might be..and guess what..NOT PAUL..but Santorum...?WHY? Santorum was A Fox contributor and they depend on the far right for ratings ..END OF STORY . So my personal take on this night.. 1. Romney..didn't take any bait..deflected ..and even didn't answer questions when it might not be his best case.Used Comedy with Paul on the stupid contraceptive question..Stayed above the fray and even looked amused standing between the Paul and Santorum scrum. 2. Paul.. even if I dont agree with him..he nailed it tonight.I really wouldn't mind seeing him in Romney's Sec. of Treasury post. On economic cycles and spending he is great..He just doesn't look the part..SORRY Paulites..He isnt going to be the next President..# 5 Position would be even BETTER for the country. 3. Huntsman. He came prepared and gunning..like a guy who is in the championship fight realizing its in the 14 round and you are losing 13-0. Clear ..well positioned.. efficient...and way too late. ANOTHER TRIP TO CHINA ? 4. Santorum..Got owned by Paul along with Newt.The lil Ol guy took it to them even if he is wrong..made them look bad.Santorum had Moments..But never went after Romney..a chance gone forever. 5. Newt The Hoot Gingrich.. A great speaker in Public..but remember his record and what he says after.. People have decided he is NON electable and his FLUFFY attack on Romney doesn't show him to be that tough..He has been out maneuvered several times by Romney. How much will N.H appreciate that ? Not more than 4th place. Maybe 15 pts at most. 6. Perry..was having a GREAT night until the Iraq moment..Saying he would send troops in right now and Iran will take over Iraq in lightspeed ? He still gives you the impression a great blunder is about to happen again.. YOU almost feel for him as you see him remembering his pre programmed lines he wants to get in. It doesn't Flow like a practiced states man on a world stage. I grade Paul worse on delivery ..but he is at least in his normal comfort zone..Perry looks like he is still seeking his..uncomfortable...BUT improving over the previous debates. He has 1 last chance and I still fear him the most as the one conservatives ..( the far right ) will flock back too. Give your impressions..and stay focused on the debate performance.
I already stated most of my opinions on the debate in the other thread here: http://www.politicalforum.com/elect...home-runs-debate-mobs-start-ignoring-him.html But I'll continue with a candidate by candidate break down like you have here. 1. Ron Paul: The clear winner in my opinion despite being ignored for the second half of the debate. His first one or two exchanges worried me a little but then he brought the fire. While this debate won't make him the national front runner, I think he's the clear winner because I suspect he'll benefit the most from it. I expect him to inch further up the polls because of it, taking from every candidate, including, perhaps, Mitt Romney. As always, he didn't give standard politician answers (the answers of an empty suit), but rather answers of substance that intelligent people appreciate and I think find refreshing. I believe he also had the best moments of the night which isn't surprising simply because he isn't an empty suit. His attack on Santorum was adequate but his attack on Newt was devastating. A man that got drafted and went calling another man who dodged the draft a chicken hawk is in my opinion the touch of death. Americans will remember that exchange. 2. Mitt Romney: Mitt Romney did what he had to do. Say nothing controversial, damaging, (*)(*)(*)(*)ing, or divisive. Romney has the advantage of mass media support which means he doesn't have to say anything beyond the generic, easy and safe answers and he'll maintain his current lead, even if others (perhaps Ron Paul) eats into it a little. As long as Romney didn't say anything that made peoples heads spin the talking heads were going to say he won the debate and he accomplished that. I was disappointed with his answers because they were all mostly fluff but that's to be expected. I did notice he toned down his war rhetoric. I believe this is obviously because his campaign was worried that Ron Paul's peace message is more appealing than Bachman and company's war message. It was a subtle shift most might not have noticed and also smart politics. He's a smooth operator, to be sure. Jon Huntsman: I think it's a toss up from here on down. I suppose I'd give #3 to Huntsman because his babbling about his accomplishments as Governor may have earned him a few points. All in all I think he came off as a cyborg and I was so infuriated the moderators kept calling on him over Ron Paul in the second hour that he was giving me a headache. He took a few jabs at Romney and stole a few of Ron Paul's lines. Nothing great, nothing spectacular, but nothing horrible. He'll be done soon. Rick Santorum: Santorum was a coward all night long. He was hiding the depth (or extremism?) of his convictions simply to play to the New Hampshire audience. We all know you don't want the States deciding gay marriage, Santorum! At least be man enough to stand by what you believe! His bright point, unfortunately, was against Paul, when in the very beginning he said the bell rang because it caught Ron Paul in a lie. Ron Paul wasn't lying but people who hate Ron Paul and don't know Rick Santorum i'm sure thought that was a good zinger. After that it was all down hill. Ron Paul made short work of him. The only reason I put Santorum above Newt Gingrich is because Ron Paul lit Newt Gingrich up like the 4th of July. Newt Gingrich: A draft dodger getting into an argument with someone who was drafted and served during war time is an unwinnable fight. When Newt started trying to wiggle out of his past by saying his Father was in the Army it just looked pathetic, like it was his one hope to get out of it alive. When he said "The fact is, I never asked for deferment. I was married with a child. It was never in question." And Paul responded with conviction that "when I was drafted, I was married with two kids and I WENT!." that was the end of poor Newt. He was destroyed. An honorable man had questioned the honor of a dishonorable man on national television and there was nowhere to hide. Newt Gingrich is a chicken hawk and he looked like it. Ron Paul cooked him. Rick Perry: Poor Perry... He was having the best debate he's ever had. In the very beginning he was actually looking like a contender again - a rough and tumble cowboy Governor from the lone star state of Texas! And then it happened.... He states unapologetically on national television that he would invade Iraq.... again.... right now.... after we just left. One could feel with a sixth sense his entire campaign staff and all of his doners facepalm at the exact same time. Rick Perry went into New Hampshire with little more than a lift raft and managed to shoot himself with an MK 54 Torpedo. Poor, poor Rick Perry. He's a likable guy, he's just sort of an idiot. He then went after Ron Paul for no reason later in the debate about economics as if Ron Paul ever said he was against energy or lowering taxes. I think this strawman was just the result of Perry feeling desperate and looking for a way to assert himself aggressively back into the discussion. It failed miserably.
Well, Romney won again as he wins every one of these debates. Paul with his absurd anti Republican approach to national defense and foreign affairs makes me wonder how and why he's still in there making a fool of himself. My guess is that he's too old and listless to run for congress again so this is his last gasp if you will....a 15 minutes of fame in front of the TV cameras so at least he'll go out in a recognizable manner with both guns firing duds. The more he presents his liberal approach to foreign affairs, the worse it is for his senator son's ability to secure his senate seat in Kentucky. Rand must be cringing in the corner every time he sees good old dad make a mockery of our military missions around the world. Btw, has anyone noticed that Paul looks and acts like Ross Perot? Aren't they both from Texas, aren't they both about 4'10" in height and aren't they both offspring from the same set of midget parents? But you gotta hand it to Newt, for I believe he's known for a long time that he's not going to be the nominee. I do like it when Newt turns the debate around by telling the moderators and the lib media that they aren't focussing in on the Conservative viewpoints, such as with his mention of the hatchet job they do on Christianity while praising their secular views on abortion etc.
Typical reply from a typical (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) who attacks a person and not their ideology. I've yet to see you actually debate his policies beyond calling him an assortment of names which only provides the fact that you're mentally deficient. Calling someone a "Liberal" and "Anti-Republican" while you call Obama the Evil Socialist is laughable... Unless you consider every other Republican "Leader" to be a Socialist too because they're right along with Obama in nearly every ideology you bash Obama for. There are no differences between him and Bush so I don't understand why you're complaining with how things are being run... Is it because you watch the boobtube or listen to the radio while the same jerkoffs tell you there is a difference? You're a fool.
What part of my attacking Paul's foreign policy views did you find to be non ideological? Interesting. Perhaps you could put down that glass of kool aid long enough to expalin to me just how every other Republican leader is a a socialist, and how exactly they share obama's ideology? Your immature, inadequate, dishonest, misleading, incoherent and factually devoid assessments of Bush compared to obamumism is laughable at best.
You use purely rhetoric found from every major boobtube source you can manage and use that has your talking piece even though HISTORY & LAW clearly says otherwise to what you consistently spew. When History itself concerning American Foreign Policy only exists when Americans die to you and not when American Agencies go about the World starting Wars or overthrowing Governments. You lack the ability to debate any such knowledge so you use current talking points to deflect every possible discussion concerning. That is why you're a typical jackass who posts about Ron Paul being an idiot when you yourself only know a tenth of the knowledge he knows. Open a book or go do some research before you decide to make yourself the fool again when it comes to Foreign Policy worm. They're both for the "Empire" when it comes to "Humanitarian" efforts while also being Militaristic/Aggressive towards other Nations that want their own sovereignty, they're all for continual Government intervention into the Marketplace either through Regulations or Stimulus of some sort, they wish to continue the current Welfare system as Status Quo their Rhetoric may come off as aggressive towards welfare but, their records prove they're liars and their overall belief of a Centralized Government having monstrous power. They're all the same... Socially, Economically, Foreign Policy wise and on Internal Domestic Issues. It's similar to watching a Wrestling Match back when I was child because it rings true that it's all a Circus act to make the fools believe there is a difference between the choices being presented. Haha what!? Bush's Policies are extremely similar to Obama's! The only difference is that Obama along with the Democrats were trying to push for a Federal Healthcare system... that's it! There are no other major issues that they differ upon. I also love how you insult me directly rather than trying to prove that they're not similar in any notion but, by all means continue to show your attitude when it comes to debating. I'm just tired of jackasses such as yourself spewing nonsense without every having a shred of proof to go along with it.
Ha Ha ..wrong. President Bush was 1st. Obama was 2nd.. Obama is the same as Bush..not the other way around. So lets THINK a bit. Why is that.. One claimed to be from the conservative side ..the other from the liberal side. They both argued about GETMO and yet it's still there. They both argued about where and why they would go to war. They both did the same thing.. Maybe ..just maybe for the sake or argument we see what being a centralist is all about..leading form the middle. Its only STYLE points on how they got there..At least in National defense matters. So on that 1 major point NATIONAL DEFENSE we see swings from each extreme edge coming to the middle. I believe that PAUL would be no different when he saw the classified briefings each and every morning. No one would place the nation in jeopardy over ideology and political bonus points. But to get elected one has to say Paul goes against conventional wisdom and past experiences. How he says he would get there is STYLE..not real substance IMO.
I doubt it considering Bush & Obama were con men who said one thing and did quite another... you know pulled a Romney in terms of Rhetoric. But I see your blatant approach of showing how Romney is the "Centrist" when in Reality he is more Authoritarian than he is Centrist. The Republic has had enough Authoritarians to beat Hitler and Stalin together twice over already... It's time for a Constitutionally based Government that doesn't allow Elected & Appointed Officials to beyond their Limits of Power. As of right now the Status Quo is that of Electing Authoritarians who bend and break the Laws for the "Greater Good" of us all when in reality it has done nothing but impoverish the American People.
Ron Paul got his ass handed to him over the weekend by Rick Santorum. I love the fact that Rick goes after that crackpot.
Romney won, as he left unscathed. As for the fight for second, I think Huntsman got a boost. Maybe Paul and Santorum, but that's only after Santorum completely dropped his rhetoric on social values. Gingrich looked bitter and silly. Perry wanted to go back into Iraq. Romney, Paul, Huntsman. That'll possibly be how the primary finishes, and no one will be unhappy with that finish.
A bengal can't change his stripes. Romney is a big government wolf in wolf's clothing. Only sheep would be dumb enough to follow a wolf.
I love the fact you cannot debate at any point and resort to petty insults to drive your message forward... more senseless rhetoric from a typical jackass poster who deflects conversations.
Still failing to provide substance beyond your consistent spew... Why don't you reply to my previous post you ran from? Or is it because your ass was thoroughly handed to you?
I didn't see where you had addressed anyone in particular with that thread. You sure it was yours truly you were addressing there?
The absolute biggest thing done, the smartest move made, was Romney pushing tariffs on Chinese imports. Hands down. Now people on here know I want Paul, and by far find him the most genuine. The next 3 or 4 talking points, or subjects, Paul wins. Foreign policy is his and his alone, nationally. That is why they are trying desperately for him not to get the nod. He takes half the Obama votes with his anti-war message. That is fact. But the number one talking point in this economic climate is outsourcing and trade with China. Paul is pro-free trade, and won't bring it up. Deep down I know Mitt won't do it, but know this, if I thought he really would, he would get my vote. For at this current juncture in history, the FED is still untouchable. Tariffs on China, with every congress person's phone ringing off the hook wanting it, would be a given with a president who had the balls. Though it was all ear candy, most people in America love ear candy, and I think the republicans on this site underestimate the effect anti-Chinese rhetoric has on American workers. Huntsman is dead in the water because of his Chinese. Seriously should withdraw tomorrow.
I saw it, and what I heard was this: Paul: Santorum's a big government guy who voted who voted for foreign aid, the biggest welfare expansion since LBJ, and to give federal bureaucrats control over children's education. Santorum: Waaaahhh! He's lying! Paul: He's also corrupt. Santorum: That's just something George Soros said. Now here's a list of instances where I was on the right side of things. That's pretty good, right? Don't pay any attention to all the times I was on the wrong side of things.
I'm quite certain considering it was the same topics being discussed... which you let slip by for an entire day to avoid it. But go right ahead and simply avoid it because it only proves you only spew Rhetoric... you're no better than the "Liberals" you despise. Hell you may even be one of them!
You still didn't show me where it was me you were addressing with that post #7. So I don't see where I let anything slip by...not even the praise you keeping giving me.
Nobody wins debates...they are more like sitcoms that we tune in and watch. The real winner will be shown after the primary ends, not before. Everything that leads up to it is just show. Each of knows who we like and who we want to win, so there is bias in the viewing and bias in the telling.
You have a point there. George Bush was said to have lost 3 of the 4 debates or so he had with both algore and with kerry, yet he still managed to become president.
