GOP Presidential Debate on May 15, 2007

[mikem317]

Anybody watch it? Jay Leno was billing it as the "Thriller in Vanilla".

I missed the first one. But I don't know why there are posters championing Paul. Although he had some good ideas, a lot of it floats right over. He looks like an ineffective octogenarian, which I guess is hard to do if you're 71 years-old. His voice was nauseating too. Sound like he was actually complaining more than debating. A libertarian masquerading with an "R" at the end of his name.

I thought Rudy stole the show; his social, domestic and foreign policy ideas bode well with me. Despite the fact that he's a Yankees fan.

Best part was when he sparred over comments made by Paul (who accused US military operations during the Persian Gulf war served as impetus for September 11), and asked the congressman to withdraw his comments. Rudy totally interrupted the flow, even the camera operators and producers were seemingly confused. McCain and Romney were just jockeying for title of "who is more conservative".

Brownback, Tancredo et all, didn't impress me much. Thompson looked as pliable as a store mannequin.

When are the Democrats going to air?

[bzbatl]

Agreed, Ron Paul didn't do so well the second time around.

Paul didn't make that claim, though - that's like saying Sharpton said nappy headed hos on the air. You need to read up on where that comment came from and you'll understand that entire section better.

You should have seen the first one, he absolutely destroyed everyone in the first one... but like you said, doesn't seem to belong in the group. He's still a Libertarian.

[EEfz6]

He doesn't belong in the group, and that is what makes him a stand out. Basically, the others are just Bush lackeys. "Let's try to get to the same place Bush is going, just use a slightly different road." Paul is the only one with the courage to say that we are going to wrong way. Unfortunately, the easiest target is the one who stands out. He will likely now be crucified by the media, because they are noticing the attention he is getting. And, unfortunately, people are not smart enough to think for themselves. They generally just believe what the media tells them to.

[TheSollyLama]

I don't believe 99% of what the media tells me. But I don't believe 100% of what any politician tells me!

They are all equally worthless. They all make a living telling you what you want to hear- as long as 'you' is defined by whatever special interest group you represent when signing campaign checks.

[mikem317]

Originally Posted by bzbatl

Paul didn't make that claim, though - that's like saying Sharpton said nappy headed hos on the air. You need to read up on where that comment came from and you'll understand that entire section better.

Understand what section? I saw the debate twice now. What section do you speak of?

[mikem317]

Originally Posted by EEfz6

He doesn't belong in the group, and that is what makes him a stand out. Basically, the others are just Bush lackeys. "Let's try to get to the same place Bush is going, just use a slightly different road." Paul is the only one with the courage to say that we are going to wrong way. Unfortunately, the easiest target is the one who stands out. He will likely now be crucified by the media, because they are noticing the attention he is getting. And, unfortunately, people are not smart enough to think for themselves. They generally just believe what the media tells them to.

I'd hardly consider Rudy a Bush lackey. Even McCain, who was the FIRST choice to be Kerry's running mate BTW is not a Bush lackey. People think he's a Bush lackey because he simply has a plan for the war, which is not like any Democrat I've heard thus far (no plan, just get out now).

[EEfz6]

Originally Posted by mikem317

I'd hardly consider Rudy a Bush lackey.

I will give you that. He is just a pro war democrat. The R by his name doesn't change that. Pretty dang close to Hillary on a different ticket.

Originally Posted by mikem317

Even McCain, who was the FIRST choice to be Kerry's running mate BTW is not a Bush lackey. People think he's a Bush lackey because he simply has a plan for the war, which is not like any Democrat I've heard thus far (no plan, just get out now).

I have heard nothing from McCain to point him to being anything but a Bush Lackey. I have heard nothing of a plan for the war from him. I have heard him say that we now have a plan that is in place that can win (referring to Bush's plan... go figure).

[mikem317]

Originally Posted by EEfz6

I will give you that. He is just a pro war democrat. The R by his name doesn't change that. Pretty dang close to Hillary on a different ticket.

I don't think Rudy's either. He's pro-decision, but cuts taxes, pro-civil unions, but supports the War on Terror. He's a hybrid. That's why he has mass appeal. If running as a Democrat he would get top billing, handily over the other political opportunists, namely Clinton and Obama.

I have heard nothing from McCain to point him to being anything but a Bush Lackey. I have heard nothing of a plan for the war from him. I have heard him say that we now have a plan that is in place that can win (referring to Bush's plan... go figure).

I'm still surprised that people would shoehorn somebody as a Bush "lackey", who would've been running on Kerry presidential ticket, but whatever.

[EEfz6]

Originally Posted by mikem317

I'm still surprised that people would shoehorn somebody as a Bush "lackey", who would've been running on Kerry presidential ticket, but whatever.

If it looks like duck and talks like a duck...

[TheSollyLama]

i have to agree with the McCain thing to a large degree. Other than some social issue points, McCain sounds like he is for the status quo Bush is leaving. I saw him interviewed recently and he keeps saying that he supports a Iraq plan that works- but hasn't detailed one. He is pro-life and simply less vocal about his theocratic whims than Bush, but it's still there....lurking.

I was all for the war (not because of terrorism like 9/11 but because Saddam blatantly violated his surrender terms and because I support anything the UN is against) so Ron Paul isn't sounding like my guy either.

Romney- oh come on, he's even worse than Bush in believing religious nonsense as a mormon. Just what we need, another person that talks to themselves in charge of a nuclear arsenal....

So far Rudy sounds like he is going to appeal to the middle ground most.

Anyone else is just a fly in the ointment that will be removed before long.

Still, a bad republican beats any democrat. They haven't run a serious candidate since WWII.

[mikem317]

You're going to get religion. It comes with the package. You're religious disposition doesn't lend itself well to any candidates.

I'm not going to vote on religion. Of course you can say that "Oh, I'm not going to vote for Romney because he's a Mormon." But you can't say "I'm not going to vote for Lieberman because he's a Jew."

Seriously, who gives a rats ass about their religion? I'm looking for a leader here, not a rabbi, priest or minister.

[mikem317]

Originally Posted by EEfz6

If it looks like duck and talks like a duck...

Bush stands alone. I don't think any Republican candidate is close to Bush. But if you had the metaphysical gun to the head, I would say Brownback.

[TheSollyLama]

Seriously, who gives a rats ass about their religion

--When they use it to create policy and utterly ignore the 1st amendment and cross the line on seperation of church and state- I give a huge rat's ass. An elephant's ass is more like it.

We're already set back a good 15 years in genetic research by Bush and his clinging to dark age mythology.
We have watched tax dollars get pissed away on unconstitutional faith based charities. And when he says faith based, he only means ONE faith.
And instead of countering islamic extremism with logic and reason, he counters it with christian extremism.

We have a complete failure in educating our kids with actual science and the likes of bush and romney would see science bend to fit their ridiculous notions derived from poorly written books of zero significance to reality.
Overturn Roe Vs Wade so we can protect some peoples notions of right and wrong based on mythology?

Religion is one of the biggest banes to America and the more a candidate opens his yap professing belief in the supernatural, the less I want that person in charge of his own dick, much less the country I fought for and buried too many friends for.

[Schaden]

Originally Posted by mikem317

Best part was when he sparred over comments made by Paul (who accused US military operations during the Persian Gulf war served as impetus for September 11), and asked the congressman to withdraw his comments.

Rudy Giuliani v. Ron Paul, and Reality
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20...ation/45195576

Honestly they all make me sick. Ron Paul is the only man on that stage who I felt was speaking his mind and not parroting talking points fed to him by advisors.
You can see the impact he's having in the debate by his poll #s. Once again, he beat most of the other top tier candidates. People like his message of non-interventionist foreign policy. He's exactly right. These wars of choice never end. Of course as soon as the results came in, Faux tried to downplay its significance. Steele, the GOP stooge, was especially nasty. He couldn't even come up with an answer to Colmes questioning why he was saying Paul is "out of it now". They are really dog piling on Paul. They've been playing the "Blame 9/11 on America" clip over and over again. It was on Fox & Friends this morning. One of the airhead eyecandy newscasters even was repeating how he "protected" us on 9/11.

All we hear about was his 9/11 performance, which frankly was not good. The NYFD won't endorse him because of the way he handled the cleanup.
When the terrorist bombed the trade center back in the 1990s, they told Giuliani to move the response center underground to Brooklyn. He didn't listen and look what happened. It was taken out and one of the reasons the emergency response was so dicked up. New Yorkers know the guy better than America and they prefer Bloomberg by far. Rudy has got a lot of skeletons in his past. If elected, I think he would be another big govt socialist.

Bottom line, the media is doing everything it can to pick the candidates for us.

[PhilB]

Originally Posted by mikem317

I'm still surprised that people would shoehorn somebody as a Bush "lackey", who would've been running on Kerry presidential ticket, but whatever.

Well, considering that Kerry was just Bush-lite, it makes sense. Kerry failed to generate any positive momentum in his favor because his entire platform was "I'm not Bush", and then none of his policie proposals were much different. McCain isn't just a Bush lackey; he's got really bad ideas of his own, like his "campaign finance reform" which stomped all over the First Amendment.

Ron Paul is different because:
a) His ideas are actually different from the usual pack of liars,
b) He is actually honest and not in it just for the power,
c) He actually believes in the Constitution, and in abiding by it.

Yep he's largely libertarian (although I do have some sharp differences with some of his interpretations), but we badly need a restoration of that ethos in this country.

PhilB