Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Google/Fox Republican debate at 9pm.


88Comrade2000

Recommended Posts

Once again I find myself wishing that Newt Gingrich wasn't yesterday's news, because he's so obviously the smartest guy in the room that he should get some sort of special elevated podium in these debates. Romney did very well. Perry was mediocre, but I think all he needs to do to be neck-and-neck with Romney until the end is not be a disaster, and he wasn't a disaster. (Those Fred Thompson comparisons are overblown. Fred was a disaster on steroids. He didn't even seem like he wanted to be there, especially if the alternative was a nice nap.)

Bachmann, as expected, once again demonstrated a flawless ability to reach down into a big bag of Republican words and arrange them in sentences that adhere to at least 60% of the rules of grammar. And a few of those sentences were even relevant to the question she had just been asked!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Primary debates are truly becoming too much about being rah-rah sessions for the base. And this isn't just the ® primary debates, it is both sides. The moderators are either themselves, pretty dense, or they have no interest in asking follow-ups that will challenge some the outright made up stuff the candidates tend to say.

I'd like to blame this due to it being on Fox News, but honestly all of the debates so far have pretty much been like this.

By now we pretty know how each and every candidate is going to answer every question. Knowing that, the moderators need to be asking questions that challenge their status quo prepared answers. When they throw out statistics that have never been seen or heard by anyone else, they should be followed up with a challenge. This new style where candidates just basically have carpe diem to say whatever without challenge is sad and hilarious at the same time.

The fact that anyone would vote for a candidate based on these shams is scary,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Missed the freak show but heard about the booing of a member of the military. Why do conservatives hate our military and by extension America? Did I get that right? I was going for a mimic of the typical rightwing talking point if a liberal questions the military.

Also was the response to the new law of the land by one of the mental midgets on stage that "we shouldn't be social engineering our military"? Wow. That sounds like a comment right out of the 1950's. Way to evolve there Party of the Stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rick Santorum has to be the most anti-military person I've seen in politics in a while. I'm dead serious. His idea of supporting the troops is to fire good soldiers who can translate Arabic simply because they are gay, to deploy the military into combat in a variety of exotic locations in the wake of a decade of long warfare and to suggest that we need to take a vow of celibacy in order to serve ("there should be no sexuality in the military"). Oh, and this ******* hasn't served a day in his life and he "knows" that gay people will destroy the military. This man was a scummy lawyer for the government, I think I'll pass on him and his foreign policy of "attack everyone whose name isn't America."

edit: Also, I find it funny that Santorum is trying to sue google, like he doesn't understand mathematics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Missed the freak show but heard about the booing of a member of the military. Why do conservatives hate our military and by extension America? Did I get that right? I was going for a mimic of the typical rightwing talking point if a liberal questions the military.

Also was the response to the new law of the land by one of the mental midgets on stage that "we shouldn't be social engineering our military"? Wow. That sounds like a comment right out of the 1950's. Way to evolve there Party of the Stupid.

I was just reading about this. There is the video at the link.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/22/republican-debate-dadt-repeal-rick-santorum_n_977105.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having watched the debate, here are my thoughts.

1. Romney won. Somewhat sadly on this. I have liked his positioning on Massachusetts health care, saying it is a state right, but, he needed more to get out of it. Last night he went to it really being private, market based. That will hurt him. Obama people and Obama himself has spoken of the thing being a model for his own plan. Romney can't morph it into something tremendously different. His best add on was, "I still believe the concept of health care for the citizens of a state, in a state that is a priority for the people, is a good goal to reach. But, it should be done on the state level. And, critically, what I learned in Massachusetts is the negative impact government can have even on a well-intentioned plan. I'd change the waste and bloat of that plan around the state government if I had the chance, as government has caused that good idea to be wasteful." Something there would win the issue for him, but, at least the issue isn't killing him any more.

2. Perry is in trouble. He HAS the election won if he goes at social security smartly. He can't on one hand say health care is a state right, then yell at Romney for having state run health care. He just diffused the whole attack. If he attacks Romney on health care now, it can ONLY be on the quotes from Obama and Obama's people citing Romney's plan as their inspiration. It'll work only a little. Perry HAS the win in his hands, but is too dumb to process it. He has no ability to think on his feet at this point. When Romney taunts him for thinking states could have a retirement program just as states could have a health care program, he can taunt back with a simple thing like, "Mr. Romney. You have moved from Utah, to Massachusetts, to wherever. When you move, does all the money you ever saved for yourself stay in the state you left, forcing you to start over? Probably not, right? Portability and ownership solve the concerns you have sir. Why do you not know this?" When Romney hits him on calling SS a failure, he needs to crush Romney with it. "Sir, if I took your wallet and handed it to a person in the audience right now, that person may well be thankful for the windfall and believe the system works great. You wouldn't. When you provide for another, without providing for yourself in any way, and you are hoping your kids can provide for you, it's a failed system, even if it has paid those at the top of the pyramid for so long. It can't any longer." Perry could kill Romney on SS reform if he had the wit to.

3. Johnson had the line of the night.

4. Paul had the weakest answer of the night in his support of life believing life begins at conception, but not protecting life in the case of rape and his support of the morning after pill. Now, in both issues he's correct, he just needs a better answer. The answer is simple, "As pure, innocent and wonderful as life is, we can not, as a society, force upon a woman the obligation of carrying to term a child forced upon her by a rape. That is a form of psychological torture on that person. Her lifw matters too. She's had a terrible crime committed against her. A violation like nothing any of us could imagine having to endure. To then force her to carry that animal's child as a daily reminder of what happened to her would be a brutal assault on another viable, innocent life. That woman's. I will always protect life. But, the conceived child's life is not the only one worth protecting." Paul wins the election with an answer like that delivered with any effectiveness. He is so into is dogma sometimes he can't answer differently which does limit him. But it's also part of his charm.

5. Cain's delivery annoys me, but he does seem to be a straight shooter. And his 9-9-9 is an issue. I am all for a consumption tax, but then you remove income tax. I'm all for a lower, flat income tax with no deductions, but not then also a consumption tax. Therefore I don't like his plan, but, at least it's a plan.

6. Newty continues to deliver eloquent, thoughtful lines, but he just can't track. But, he is the VP for any of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know what people are going to say I'm doing when I say this, but doesn't Perry just seem dumb? I can't see him as President. Romney I can see. Newt, Huntsman, I can see them. Perry literally just sounds like a buffoon, constantly.

Perry is more plain spoken than some of the others, but often people confuse delivery and accent for intelligence. Bush, for example, was a very smart man. He was a poor public speaker for most of his time, but he was of very quick wit and very sharp generally. He could move on his feet some. Perry isn't there yet, and it's the lack of crisp wit which hurts him. He's only about two to three weeks in to this campaign, so he is tired and still processing things the way people tell him he's supposed to answer. You'll see him pick up on his delivery as he's more polished in that way than Bush traditionally.

But, right now he is slow afoot and is not holding all the data he's being given. That last part will even up, but the slow afoot may not as you either have it, or you don't. He is losing though. Answers like he gave on funding illegals for in state tuition will hurt him. There ARE answers to give on that, but he gave THE one most likely to cost him 10 percent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree he sounds dumb at times,especially in that format

his life tells a different story .....do perceptions or actions matter most?

If he really sounded smart this election would be over already

add

Art....it is a unpopular position (Texas Dream Act) in some quarters,and one I dislike myself.

I also understand why we as a state did it,and that Perry couldn't have stopped it if he wanted to.

the talk of it subsidizing and encouraging illegals is what is truly foolish....they are here and we are stuck with them because of the Feds.( I could name 12 or more illegals my kids went through school with,they are reality here...... we already have subsidized and encouraged them ALL through school by federal decree)

Making the best of a **** sandwich is rather unappetizing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question: what happens if Palin enters? I think that would be the worst thing that could happen to the GOP. Perry is instantly knocked out and then you have a full-fledged war between the base (Palin) and the establishment (Romney).

And Tulane, im not sure if Perry is dumb or if he just doesn't have the type of mind/way of thinking that works well in a debate setting. Can you imagine him trying to debate Obama?

Romney is the GOP's best shot. He's got this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree he sounds dumb at times,especially in that format

his life tells a different story .....do perceptions or actions matter most?

If he really sounded smart this election would be over already

In Elections, perceptions win 99% of the time, or Bush wouldn't have won in 2004.

Right now the perception is that Perry struggles with free thinking on his feet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...